Study for Expeditious Processing of Environment Clearances ... scheme/Final_Report_Gopakum… ·...

Study for Expeditious Processing of

Environment Clearances for Projects of

Narmada Valley Development Authority

(NVDA)

Submitted To:

Submitted by;

K V Gopakumar

MBA Student

IIT Kanpur

DETAILS OF THE PROJECT

Organization Name: Narmada Valley Development Authority, Bhopal

Project Commencement Date: 10th May, 2010

Project Duration: 2 months

Project Guide Details:

Mr. Lalit Kumar Sood (I.F.S) Mr. Atul Kumar Jain

Chief Conservator of Forests Conservator Forest

NVDA, Bhopal NVDA, Bhopal

Name of the Student:

K V Gopakumar

Roll No. Y9125019

Summer Intern

IME Department (MBA)

IIT Kanpur

Email: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Contents

CERTIFICATE ........................................................................................................................... 4

ACKNOWLEDEMENT ................................................................................................................. 5

List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................. 6

Objective of the Study .............................................................................................................. 7

Methodology............................................................................................................................ 8

Process Level Diagram of each stage of the Research Methodology ............................................. 9

Narmada Valley Development Authority (NVDA) .........................................................................10

Narmada Water Dispute and the setting up of NWDT ...............................................................10

Major Decisions of the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal (NWDT) .............................................12

Formation of NVDA ..............................................................................................................13

NVDA – Organization Structure .............................................................................................14

Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) and Environment Clearance (EC) .......................................14

What is EIA? .......................................................................................................................14

Evolution of EIA in India .......................................................................................................16

EIA 1994 ............................................................................................................................16

EIA 2006 ............................................................................................................................17

Difference between EIA Notification 1994 and EIA Notification 2006 ...........................................19

What is Environment Clearance (EC), why is it needed? ...........................................................19

EC Process at NVDA ................................................................................................................25

Stakeholders .......................................................................................................................25

Steps in the Clearance Process for NVDA Projects ....................................................................26

Delay in getting EC for NVDA projects ....................................................................................26

Reasons for Delay in getting EC for NVDA Projects ...................................................................28

Methods to Reduce the Time Delay in EC Process ........................................................................30

Comparison with NHPC ............................................................................................................33

Some Recommendations for MoEF to Improve the Process Further ................................................35

References .............................................................................................................................36

Appendix ...............................................................................................................................37

Appendix 1 .........................................................................................................................37

Appendix 2 .........................................................................................................................38

Appendix 3 .........................................................................................................................46

Appendix 4 .........................................................................................................................49

Appendix 5 .........................................................................................................................51

Appendix 6 .........................................................................................................................57

Narmada Valley Development Authority

CERTIFICATE

To whomsoever it may concern

This is to certify that Mr. K.V Gopakumar, an intern from MBA Program of Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur was associated with the Narmada Valley Development Authority, Bhopal under the summer internship scheme of School of Good Governance and Policy Analysis, Bhopal. He had undertaken a study on “Expeditious Processing of Environment Clearances for Projects of Narmada Valley Development Authority (NVDA)” assigned to him by the department. He was associated with the department for a period of two months starting from 10th May, 2010 and has completed the project successfully. We wish him all the very best for his future endeavours.

A.A. Ansari Member (Environment and Forest)

Narmada Valley Development Authority, Bhopal .

ACKNOWLEDEMENT

I wish to express my deep sense of gratitude to Mr. O.P Rawat, VC, NVDA, Mr.A. A Ansari, Member (E&F), NVDA, Mr. Lalit Kumar Sood, C.C.F, NVDA and Mr Atul Kumar Jain, C.F, NVDA for their able guidance and useful suggestions, which helped me in completing the project work on time. I would also like to thank Mr.Vinay Khare, NVDA, for his valuable guidance in the project work.

I am also deeply indebted to Mr.A.K. Rana, Regional C.C.F, Dr. A. Mehrotra, Director and R.O. and Mr. S.K. Lal, MOEF, Bhopal for their valuable inputs.

I would also like express my gratitude to Mr.Bhatt, NHDC and Mr. Devraj Barua, AM (Env.), NHPC for their suggestions.

I am especially thankful to Mr. H. P. Dixit, Director General, SGPA, Dr. Umesh Pandey, Director, SGPA and Mr. Gaurav Khare, Project Officer, SGPA for providing help and support to me in completing my study.

I would also like to give my special thanks to fellow Project trainees for their valuable suggestions to the project.

List of Abbreviations

EAC Expert Appraisal Committee

EC Environment Clearance

EIA Environment Impact Assessment

EMP Environment Management Plan

EPA Environment Protection Act

MoEF Ministry of Environment and Forest

MPPCB Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board

NVDA Narmada Valley Development Authority

NWDT Narmada Water Dispute Tribunal

NHPC National Hydroelectric Power Corporation

Objective of the Study The objectives of this study are two-pronged –

a) To understand the various processes / steps involved in the process of getting clearances for projects

of NVDA from Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF).

b) To understand the reasons for delay in the EC process at NVDA and find out methods by which the

delay can be reduced.

Narmada Valley Development Authority (NVDA) is an organization of Govt. of M.P. constituted for

planning water resources development in Narmada basin and expeditious implementation of projects. It

is a multidisciplinary organization of the State Government and its head office is at Bhopal. The NVDA

shall have jurisdiction over the major water resources development projects in the Narmada Basin.

Many major projects are being simultaneously worked on under the NVDA. The purpose of these

projects are to utilize the Narmada waters, a master plan of the Narmada Basin has been prepared for

the development of Irrigation, power and providing water for industries and domestic requirements of

Madhya Pradesh.

One of the problems faced by NVDA in the past has been getting environmental clearances for their

projects from the Ministry of Environment and Forests. As a result of this many projects end up getting

delayed which can be a very costly proposition for the government. In some cases the budget allocated

for the projects increases many folds by the time the actual implementation begins. Moreover due to

the delay the whole purpose of the project, that is improvement of irrigation, power etc. is not

achieved. In the past major NVDA projects like LowerGoi, Punasa, Halon etc have taken more than 30

months and sometimes even up to 80 months for getting environment clearances. Refer Appendix 1 for

details.

This study tries to understand the internal processes followed at NVDA for getting environment

clearance, compares them to the processes followed in public sector organizations like NHDC, NHPC and

finally tries to come up with some methods which can be help to reduce the delay.

The report has been broken down into three major segments.

1) The first segment focuses on Narmada Valley Development Authority (NVDA), its history, why was it

setup, the processes followed by NVDA for getting EC etc.

2) The next segment explains the entire environment clearance (EC) process in India, its evolution, its

current form, why it is needed, the purpose of Environment Impact Assessment (EIA), various EIA

notifications etc

3) The final segment focuses on the methods that can be followed at NVDA to reduce the time delay for

EC; it also includes a comparison of NVDA’s process to those followed at NHPC, NHDC.

Methodology The first foremost step in any project is to identify the scope of the project and to chalk out a plan as to

how would one go about it.

This methodology adopted for this study was as follows:-

1) Stage 1:– The first stage involved understanding the various environment protection acts, rules and

notification. This was necessary to have a background of what could be the possible reasons for any

delays. As part of this stage various acts like Forest Conservation Act 1980, The Environment Protection

Act 1986 etc and notifications like EIA notification 1994 and 2006 were covered. Further, to collect

secondary data the websites of NVDA, Ministry of Environment and Forests were used.

2) Stage 2:- The next stage of the study involved identifying the various stakeholders involved in the EC

process and to find out different steps in the environment clearance process for any NVDA project. A

step by step break-up was prepared of the processes followed in an effort to understand each activity in

detail. This stage involved interacting with various members of NVDA for collecting primary data.

Another task at this stage was to identify the various stakeholders, their roles in the entire EC process.

Another important activity at this stage was to identify the factors which were causing major delays at

all stages and also to come up with a clear break-up of the delay (in days/months) happening at MoEF’s

end and that happening at NVDA’s end. Refer Appendix 2 for more details. In order to accomplish this all

the written communication that had happened over the last 7-8 years between NVDA and other major

stakeholders like MoEF, EIA consultant, Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board (MPPCB) and also

those communications which happened within the various departments of NVDA were studied for three

NVDA projects namely LowerGoi, Halon and Punasa. This required going through many old files full of

letters and documents sent by NVDA to other parties involved and vice versa. This stage helped to infer

the actual reasons for the delay, the various objections raised by MoEF, the chronological flow of events

and also calculate the delay at each step.

3) Stage 3:- The next step was the identification of the bottleneck, which in this case turned out to be

the preparation of the EIA (Environment Impact Assessment)/EMP (Environment Management Plan)

report by the external consultant. In the case of NVDA, for LowerGoi Project this step took 31 months,

for Halon 54 months and for Punasa around 20 months. The actual expected time for this step should be

around 12-15months. The steps that could be taken to reduce this delay would be explained in detail in

later sections of the report.

4) Stage 4:- This stage involved studying other organizations involved in getting EC from MoEF and

compare their processes with those followed at NVDA. For the purpose of this study National

Hydroelectric Power Corporation (NHPC) and NHDC (a joint venture of NHPC and Govt. of Madhya

Pradesh) were taken up to understand the processes being followed there. One of the major reasons to

take up NHPC was that their timelines for getting EC for their projects has been much less as compared

to those of NVDA. For Eg: Kotlbhel Hydro Electric Project in Tehri by NHPC was cleared in its appraisal

stage in 2 months, Siang Middle Project by NHPC was cleared in its appraisal stage in 6 months etc,

whereas the projects of NVDA like LowerGoi, Punasa, Halon etc have taken around 10 months or more

for their final appraisal stage. NHPC also has lesser delay for the EIA/EMP stage as well. This would be

explained in detail in later sections.

5) Stage 5:- This stage involved validating the findings with the respected authorities. Regular status

check meetings, interim presentations were held with the supervisors as part of the project. This helped

in regularly validating the findings and prevented the study from losing its focus.

Process Level Diagram of each stage of the Research Methodology

Figure -1

Narmada Valley Development Authority (NVDA) Before we go into the details of NVDA we need to first understand the history behind the formation of

NVDA. We will have a brief look at the Narmada Water Dispute Issue and the final decision taken by the

Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal (NWDT) which was constituted to adjudicate upon the water dispute.

Narmada Water Dispute and the setting up of NWDT

Narmada is a river in central India and the fifth largest river in the Indian subcontinent. It forms the

traditional boundary between North India and South India and flows westwards over a length of

1,312 km (815.2 mi) before draining through the Gulf of Cambey (Khambat) into the Arabian Sea, 30 km

(18.6 mi) west of Bharuch city of Gujarat. It is one of only three major rivers in peninsular India that runs

from east to west (largest west flowing river) along with the Tapti River and the Mahi River. The

Narmada river has a huge water resources potential, as much as 33.21 MAF (41,000 M.cum) of average

annual flow (more than 90% of this flow occurring during the monsoon months of June – September),

which according to estimates is greater than the combined annual flows of the Ravi, Beas and

the Sutlej rivers, which feed the Indus basin. The 75% dependable flow is 28 MAF (34,537 MCM).

Investigations for harnessing the Narmada waters started around the time of independence, when

Central Waterways, Irrigation and Navigation Commission (CWINC) identified several storage schemes

and in 1948 the Khosla Committee prioritized the proposals and named Tawa, Bargi, Punasa and

Bharuch projects (the last three on the main stem of the river) for preparation of reports. The reports

were ready by 1963. A parallel study of the Hydropower potential identified 16 sites with a potential of

1300 MW. While the project in Gujarat called Baruch Weir project went through a series of

modifications and improvements with a reformed scheme at Navagam village to extend benefits up to

the Rann of Kutch, but following the bifurcation of the erstwhile Bombay state into Maharashtra and

Gujarat states and Gujarat’s intent to raise the height of the dam at Navagam to maximize storage

benefits at the cost of submergence of potential hydropower sites in Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh,

created a dispute between the states. This resulted in an impasse in the implementation of the agreed

projects at Navagam in Gujarat, Punasa in MP and Bargi dam in MP and power benefit sharing among

the states; with MP refusing to ratify the agreements. To break the logjam, a high level Committee was

appointed by the Government of India (GOI) in September 1964. In 1965, the Committee prepared a

Master Plan for the basin which involved construction of 12 major projects in MP and the Navagam dam

in Gujarat. It provided priority to irrigation over power; irrigation of 2,630 square kilometers

(1,020 sq mi) in MP, 400 square kilometers (150 sq mi) in Maharashtra, 460 square kilometers

(180 sq mi) in Gujarat and 4,000 square kilometers (1,500 sq mi) in Rajasthan. The storages it

recommended in MP involved Bargi, Tawa and Narmadasagar (Punasa) while its proposed Navagam high

dam would submerge the hydelpower project sites of Jalasindhi (in Maharshtra) and Harinphal (MP) but

without any more submergence than would be caused by the three dams if separately constructed.

Gujarat endorsed this proposal but Maharashtra was not willing to go by it. After intense parleys failed

to resolve the problem, GOI decided to set up the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal (NWDT) in 1969

under the Inter State Water Disputes Act, 1956 to adjudicate on the dispute relating to sharing of water

of the inter–state river Narmada and its valley.1

The Tribunal gave its Award on 7th Dec., 1979. The Award specified a quantum of utilizable waters at

75% dependability to be shared by the four States of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and

Rajasthan

Allocation of Narmada water by NWDT among four states 2

1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narmada_River

2 http://www.nih.ernet.in/nih_rbis/India_information/Narmada%20Water%20Dispute%20Tribunal.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narmada_River

http://www.nih.ernet.in/nih_rbis/India_information/Narmada%20Water%20Dispute%20Tribunal.htm

State Allocation in MAF Allocation in Mm3

Gujarat 9.00 11,101.32

Madhya Pradesh 18.25 22,511.01

Maharashtra 0.25 308.37

Rajasthan 0.50 616.74

Total 28.00 34537.44

Figure- 2

Major Decisions of the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal (NWDT)

The important decisions of the Tribunal are:

The Full Reservoir Level of Sardar Sarovar Dam was fixed at 138.68 m.

The power benefits from the project are to be shared as: Madhya Pradesh

57%, Maharashtra 27%, and Gujarat 16%. The cost of power component of the project is to

be shared by Gujarat, M.P. and Maharashtra in the ratio of their benefits in power.

M.P. has to make a uniform release of 8.12 MAF (10,015.86 MCM) ex-Maheshwar to meet

the requirements of Gujarat and Rajasthan from Sardar Sarovar Dam in a normal year

having 28 MAF (34,537.45 MCM) flow.

The Indira Sagar project is to be taken up by MP and completed with a FRL of 262.13 m (860

ft) either concurrently or earlier than the construction of Sardar Sarovar.

Gujarat is required to credit to MP each year 17.63% of the expenditure

on Indira Sagar dam.

The allocation of Unit I – Dam and Appurtenant works cost between irrigation & power was

done as 43.9% and 56.1%. The irrigation component of the project is to be shared

by Gujarat and Rajasthan in the ratio of water allocation for the dam and canal.

An organization, viz., Narmada Control Authority (NCA) was set up for implementation of

the decision of the Tribunal. A Review Committee was also set up under Union Ministry of

Water Resources to review decisions of the Authority.

For efficient, economical and early execution of Unit I & III of Sardar Sarovar Project, a

construction advisory committee was set up. The Review Committee was empowered to

decide on issues on which there is disagreement in the construction committee.

The decisions of the Tribunal are subject to review after a period of 45 years from the date

of publication of the final award in the Gazette of Govt. of India.

Formation of NVDA

The NWDT awarded around 18.25 MAF of Narmada water to Madhya Pradesh. As the greater part of the

share of water (11.36 MAF) is to be utilized by the major projects, a separate department named the

Narmada Valley Development Department (N.V.D.D.) was setup by the Govt. of Madhya Pradesh in

1981. The purpose of this was the development of water resources of Narmada River by major projects.

Few major projects already implemented were retained with Water Resources Department.

Looking at the importance of the environment works and the resettlement and rehabilitation (R&R) of

the project affected families (PAF's) the State Government vide Resolution No. 500-2-NVD-XXVII-83

dated 16-7-1985 decided to constitute:-

a) Control Board for Narmada Valley Development

b) Narmada Valley Development Authority (NVDA)

The Narmada Control Board formed under the Chairmanship of Chief Minister has the overall charge of

the investigations and preparation of project reports, preparation of the Narmada Basin Plan,

construction and maintenance of major and multipurpose projects in the Narmada Valley.

The Narmada Valley Development Authority (NVDA) is a multidisciplinary organization of the State

Government and its head office is at Bhopal. The NVDA shall have jurisdiction over the major water

resources development projects in the Narmada Basin.3

The NVDA shall be responsible, in particular for the following functions:-

To prepare a detailed plan for exploitation of the water resources of the Narmada river and

its tributaries and to undertake all necessary major engineering works for the harnessing of

the river and its tributaries for the purpose of irrigation, power, navigation and other

development.

To undertake ancillary engineering works for the distribution of water for irrigation,

industrial, domestic and other purposes.

To undertake generation, sale of power in bulk to MPEB (Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board)

and all necessary engineering works ancillary thereto.

To acquire and manage land in the Narmada Valley for the purpose of carrying out

engineering works, to provide for human resettlements and the needs for irrigation, flood

control and navigation.

To shoulder responsibility of human resettlement and rehabilitation in respect of projects in

the Narmada Valley, to establish towns and villages and to take all necessary measures to

ensure planned settlement and rehabilitation.

3 http://www.nvda.in/the-nvda.htm

http://www.nvda.in/the-nvda.htm

To advise for the proper conservation and development of forests, wildlife and fisheries in

the Narmada Valley.

To set up a designs organization for the projects entrusted to it.

To undertake operation and maintenance of the projects.

To undertake monitoring and evaluation.

NVDA – Organization Structure

Figure-3

NVDA has five major departments namely: Engineering, Power, Finance, Rehabilitation, and

Environment & Forest. These departments are headed by a Member each and the Members report to

the Vice Chairman. NVDA is headed by a Chairman.

Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) and

Environment Clearance (EC)

What is EIA?

An environmental impact assessment (EIA) is an assessment of the possible impact—positive or

negative—that a proposed project may have on the environment, together consisting of the natural,

social and economic aspects.4 EIA is an "anticipatory, participatory, integrative environmental

management tool which has the ultimate objective of providing decision makers with an indication of the

likely consequences of their decisions relating to new projects or new programs, plans or policies." EIA

helps the decision makers to identify the likely effects at an early stage and to improve the quality of

project planning and decision making. It is a process used to predict the environmental consequences of

proposed major development projects, to identify and plan for appropriate measures to reduce adverse

impacts. 5,6

An EIA attempts to answer the following questions:

1) What will happen as a result of the project?

2) What will be the extent of the changes?

3) Do the changes matter?

4) What can be done about them?

5) How can decision makers be informed of what needs to be done?

Which could be achieved through the following steps -

1) Identification of impacts.

2) Prediction of significance of causes and effects of impacts

3) Evaluation of the predicted adverse impacts to determine whether

they are significant enough to warrant mitigation

4) Suggesting a wide range of measures to prevent, reduce or remedy

those adverse impacts which warrant mitigation

5) Documentation of the process and conclusion.

It is important to know about the possible impacts of any developmental plan x on our

environment. Fortunately, adequate legislation could be brought into force to make proper assessment

of all such environmental impacts. The objectives of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) are to

ensure that development is sustained with minimal environmental degradation. EIA refers to the

evaluation of the effects of major projects on a man-made natural environment. It is the basic tool for the

sound assessment of development proposal.

EIA was introduced in the USA following the enactment of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

by the United States Congress in 1969. Since then, many countries have included EIA in their

environmental legislation. Over the time, EIA has evolved as a management tool and a planning aid that

helps in identifying, predicting, assessing impacts on environment from proposed development

projects. It is a valuable mechanism that aids in promoting sustainable development.

4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_assessment

5 http://164.100.194.13:8080/ssdn1/htmls/Guidance%20Manual.htm

6 http://moef.nic.in/modules/project-clearances/environment-clearances/

Evolution of EIA in India

Environmental management issues came to focus in India, when National Committee on Environmental

Planning and Coordination (NCEPC) was constituted in 1972, following Stockholm conference, under

Department of Science and Technology (Valappil et al., 1994). The Planning Commission directed the

NCEPC to undertake EIA of the major development projects to weigh the pros and cons of these

activities on the environment. Later on, the Department of Environment (DoE) was established as per

the recommendation of the NCEPC, in 1980, which was finally converted to a full-fledged Ministry of

Environment and Forest 5 years later (Rao, 1997). MoEF enacted Environment Protection Act (EPA),

1986, is an umbrella act covering various environmental aspects. Under EPA, 1986, an EIA notification

was brought out in 1994, making EIA mandatory for a particular group of activities. Till 1994,

environmental clearance from the Central Government was an administrative decision and lacked

legislative support. This notification not only specifies the type of activities requiring EIA but also fixes a

time schedule for the whole process. It also defines the role of the MoEF in the whole process.

One of the major amendments made was to introduce public hearing procedure in 1997. It outlines the

process of conducting public hearing, from submission of report to State Pollution Control Board (SPCB)

to the specification for public hearing notice, composition of the hearing panel and time period for the

completion of public hearing process. In 2006 MoEF came up with a new EIA notification to address the

limitations of EIA 1994. The notification makes it mandatory for various projects such as mining,

thermal power plants, river valley, infrastructure (road, highway, ports, harbours and airports) and

industries including very small electroplating or foundry units to get environment clearance. However,

unlike the EIA Notification of 1994, the new legislation has put the onus of clearing projects on the state

government depending on the size/capacity of the project.

The EC process is also subjected to the stipulated standards in the Water (Prevention and Control of

Pollution) Act, 1974; Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981; Noise Pollution (Regulation and

Control) Rules, 2000, to provide prescribed limit of the pollutants which a particular activity may release

to the environment. The Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989 and Forest

(Conservation) Act, 1980, are the other major acts that have bearings on EC practice.7

EIA 1994

The environment impact process was integrated into the Indian legal system in 1994 when Environment

Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification had first come into existence. The objective of the Notification was

to push for more sustainable industrialization process in the country after giving due consideration to

environmental and social impacts. For doing so, the notification imposed restrictions on setting up,

modernizing or expanding any new project or proposal without getting an environmental clearance from

the government. The notification specified the type of project/proposal that needed environmental

clearance and thus would have to conduct the EIA. The Act also made it mandatory for all projects listed

in Schedule 1 to get an environmental clearance directly from the Central Government for setting or

expanding any plant in any state in the country. It also listed a number of projects/proposals, which

were exempted from the environment clearance process or public hearing.

7 EIA practice in India and its evaluation using SWOT analysis, Ritu Paliwal

The notification had also made provisions for formation of an Impact Assessment Agency (IAA), to

comprise experts for review of the documents submitted to the MoEF for clearance. It defined the roles

and responsibilities of the IAA and fixed time frame for various stages of the environmental clearance

process. The notification also made the provision for the proponent to reapply in case its EIA report was

rejected due to lack of data. It, however, placed a penalty of automatic rejection in case of

misrepresentation and concealing of factual data.

The main stages of EC according to EIA 1994 were:

1) Site Clearance: Site clearance was given for site specific projects which were mentioned notification.

Project proponents were required to furnish information according to the environmental appraisal

questionnaires for site clearance, as may be prescribed by the IAA from time to time

2) Preparation of EIA/EMP Report: Second stage was the preparation of the Environment Impact

Assessment report and the Environment Management Plan.

3) Public Hearing: Once the EIA/EMP reports were ready the next stage was the public hearing stage.

4) Final Project Clearance: Once the public hearing was successfully conducted the proponent had to

submit all the relevant documents to the MoEF for final clearance. These documents included EIA/EMP

reports, NOC from pollution control board, Summary of Project report, Pre-Feasibility Report (PFR) etc,

based on this the application for EC was rejected or accepted.

Some of the constraints identified in the EC Process under the EIA Notification, 1994 by the

Govindarajan Committee, set up by Central Government, are as under:8

Cumbersome procedure

Disproportionate details sought with applications

Delay in appraisal meetings

Time consuming and requiring undue effort

Reopening of technical issues during various stages of appraisal

Poor quality of EIA studies by consultants

Delays by other concerned agencies

EIA 2006

In order to address this issue and to address the limitations in the old EIA Notification (1994), the Union

Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) notified the new EIA Notification in September 2006 after

putting up the draft notification for public comment for a year. The new notification has brought in

more number of projects within the purview of the environmental clearance process. As a result, a

revised list of those projects and activities has been prepared which require prior environmental

clearance. Most importantly, the categorization of projects requiring EIA is now no longer based on

investment. Instead, the size or capacity of the project, according to the new notification, determines

whether it is to be cleared by the central or state government.

8 http://delhigreens.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/environmental-impact-assessment.pdf

Some Salient features of EIA 2006 were:

1) Categorization of projects and activities - All projects and activities are broadly categorized into two

categories - Category A and Category B based on:

spatial extent of impacts

impacts on natural and man-made resources

impacts on human health

Please Refer EIA Notification 2006 for details regarding categorization of Projects

2) Requirements of prior Environmental Clearance (EC) – The following projects require EC:

Projects listed in the schedule to notification (as Category A and B projects)

All new projects or activities listed in the Schedule to this notification

Expansion and modernization of existing projects or activities listed in the Schedule to

this notification

Any change in product - mix in an existing manufacturing unit included in Schedule

The EC is granted by :

For Category A projects: Central Government in the Ministry of Environment and Forests

For Category B projects: At state level the State Environment Impact Assessment

Authority (SEIAA)

3) Expert Committees for Screening, Scoping and Appraisal (EAC and SEAC) – Expert Committees are

setup at central level and state level for screening, scoping and appraisal. At the state level it is the State

Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) and the central level it is the EAC (Expert Appraisal Committee). Procedure for selection and maintenance of EAC and SEAC is given in notification.

4) Application for Prior Environmental Clearance - An application seeking prior environmental clearance

in all cases shall be made:

In the prescribed Form 1 and Supplementary Form 1A

After the identification of prospective site(s)

After identification of activities

Submit pre-feasibility report for all and conceptual plan for construction activities

5) The stages in the EC process as per EIA 2006 are:

Stage 1: Screening (Only for Category ‘B’ projects and activities)

Stage 2: Scoping

Stage 3: Public Consultation

Stage 4: Appraisal

These stages would be discussed in detail in the next section where we explain Environment Clearance

in detail.

Difference between EIA Notification 1994 and EIA Notification 2006

The main points of difference between EIA notification 1994 and EIA notification 2006 are:

Categorization of projects into A, B1 and B2

Category A to be appraised at central level and category B1 and B2 at state levels

Scoping to determine TORs for EIA

Finality of TOR

No separate site clearance stage, this is incorporated in the scoping stage

Public consultation is more structured, to be conducted by SPCB (State Pollution Control Board)

and presided over by DM (Deputy Magistrate)

Time limits set at each stage

What is Environment Clearance (EC), why is it needed?

Environmental clearance from Ministry of Environment & Forests is required for following categories of

project as per EIA notification 2006-9

Sector: Industry

1. Petroleum refineries including crude and products pipelines

2. Chemical fertilizers (nitrogenous and phosphatic other than single superphosphate)

3. Pesticides (Technical)

4. Petrochemical complexes (both olefinic and aromatic) and petro chemical intermediates such as DMT,

Caprolactam, LAB etc. and production of basic plastics such as LDPE, HDPE, PP, PVC

5. Bulk drugs and pharmaceuticals

6. Exploration of oil and gas and their production, transportation and their storage

7. Synthetic rubber

8. Asbestos and asbestos products

9. Hydrocyanic acid and its derivatives

10. a) Primary metallurgical industries (such as production of iron and steel, aluminum, copper, zinc,

lead and ferro alloys) b) Electric Arc Furnace (Mini Steel Plants)

11. Chloro alkali industry

9 http://www.novamining.com/Guidelines/Environmental%20Clearance.pdf

12. Integrated paint complex including manufacture of resins and basic raw materials required in the

manufacture of paints

13. Viscose staple fiber and filament yarn

14. Storage batteries integrated with manufacture of oxides of lead and lead antimony alloys

15. Distilleries

16. Raw skins and hides

17. Pulp paper and news print

18. Dyes

19. Cement

20. Foundries (individual)

21. Electroplating

22. Meta Amino phenol

Sector: Mining

23. Mining projects (with lease more than 5 hectares)

Sector: Thermal Power

24. Nuclear power and related projects such as heavy water plants, nuclear fuel complex, rare earths

25. Thermal power plants

Sector: River Valley and Hydroelectric

26. River valley projects including hydel power, major irrigation and their combination including flood

control

Sector: Infrastructure and Miscellaneous Infrastructure

27. Ports, Harbors, Airports (except minor ports and harbors)

28. Highway projects except projects relating to improvement work including widening and

strengthening of roads with marginal land acquisition along the existing alignments provided it does not

pass through ecologically sensitive areas such as National Parks, sanctuaries, tiger reserves reserve

forests

29. Tarred road in the Himalayas and forest areas

30. Miscellaneous All tourism projects between 200m – 500m of High Water line and at location with an

elevation of more than 1000m with investment of more than Rs. 5 crores

The rationale behind listing these projects is environmental damage intensity. Such projects bring with

them a broad range of alterations in the environment and hence their environmental aspects need to be

scrutinized to ensure sustainable development and to mitigate the negative effects caused by them.

However, depending upon size/investment the applicability of the requirement may vary in certain

cases. Similarly, certain areas are more degraded and require specific regulation for permitting setting

up of any kind of developmental project. MoEF has brought out various notifications regulating setting

up projects in these areas.

The expansion or modernization of the projects also increases the damage potential on environment.

MoEF has therefore regulated undertaking expansion and modernization projects also for above

identified 30 categories of projects.

Since public may be effected by a developmental project, provision of public consultation (with few

exceptions) has been made in the EC process. Ministry of Environment & Forests has grouped 30

categories of projects in five-sub group depending on the similarity of EC process work flow. These

groups are as under:

1. Industry

2. Mining

3. Thermal Power

4. River Valley and Hydro Electric

5. Infrastructure and Miscellaneous projects

The projects falling in coastal Zone regulated area out of the above requires clearance under CRZ

notification also.

According to the EIA 2006, the stages of EC are:

Screening: This is only for Category B projects. (Please refer EIA Notifications 2006 for details on

category). All category A projects compulsorily need EIA. this stage will entail the scrutiny of an

application seeking prior environmental clearance made in Form 1 by the concerned State level Expert

Appraisal Committee (SEAC) for determining whether or not the project or activity requires further

environmental studies for preparation of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for its appraisal

prior to the grant of environmental clearance depending up on the nature and location specificity of the

project. The projects requiring an EIA report shall be termed Category ‘B1’ and remaining projects shall

be termed Category ‘B2’ and will not require an EIA report.

Application in Form 1 for Screening (Figure -4)

Scoping: “Scoping” refers to the process by which the Expert Appraisal Committee in the case of

Category ‘A’ projects or activities, and State level Expert Appraisal Committee in the case of Category

‘B1’ projects or activities, including applications for expansion and/or modernization and/or change in

product mix of existing projects or activities, determine detailed and comprehensive Terms Of Reference

(TOR) addressing all relevant environmental concerns for the preparation of an Environment Impact

Assessment (EIA) Report in respect of the project or activity for which prior environmental clearance is

sought. The TORs are based on:

on the basis of the information furnished by applicant in the prescribed application Form1/Form

1A including

proposed by the applicant

a site visit by a sub- group of EAC or SEAC, only if considered necessary.

SCOPING PROCESS (Figure -5)

Public Consultation: It is the process by which the concerns of local affected persons and others who

have plausible stake in the environmental impacts of the project or activity are ascertained. All Category

‘A’ and Category B1 projects or activities shall undertake Public Consultation though there is a big list of

exceptions to this.

Public Consultation shall ordinarily have two components:

Public hearing at the site or in its close proximity- district wise, to be carried out in the

manner prescribed in Appendix 3, for ascertaining concerns of local affected persons, this is

conducted by the State Pollution Control Board.

Obtain responses in writing from other concerned persons having a plausible stake in the

environmental aspects of the project

Public Consultation Stage (Figure – 6)

Appraisal Stage: This is the final stage in the EC process and refers to the detailed scrutiny by the EAC or

SEAC of application and other documents submitted by the applicant for grant of environment

clearance. Some of the documents include: EIA/EMP Report, Public hearing documents, Replacement

and Rehabilitation Plan etc, Detailed Project Report etc.

EC Process with Rough Timelines (Figure -

7)

EC Process at NVDA

Stakeholders

The various stakeholders involved in the process of Environment Clearance for NVDA projects are:

1. NVDA, various departments like Environment and Forest (E&F), Engineering, Rehab etc.

2. MoEF (Ministry of Environment and Forest)

3. External Consultants for EIA/EMP Reports

4. Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board (MPPCB)

5. General Public and those affected by the project

Steps in the Clearance Process for NVDA Projects

The EC process at NVDA can be broken down as follows:

Site Selection: - This task is done by the Engineering department at NVDA. They identify suitable

tasks and try to gauge the viability of the site for the project purposes. The relevant data

collection takes place at this stage to find out the feasibility of the project.

Preparation of the Pre- Feasibility Report (PFR):- The next stage carried out by the engineering

department is the preparation of the Pre-Feasibility Report (PFR). This is one of the documents

submitted along with the application to the MoEF as part of the EC initiation process. This report

is generally prepared by a consultant fixed by NVDA.

Submission of application form for Environment Clearance: - The next stage is the submission

of Form 1 (as per EIA notification 2006) for EC. This is taken up by the E&F department of NVDA.

Approval of Terms of Reference by Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) and MoEF: - On the basis

of the Application Form (along with the TORs (Terms of References) proposed by NVDA) and the

PFR the MoEF either approves the TOR or adds some further TORs from its end for EIA report.

Fixing of Agency for EIA/EMP: - Next stage is the fixing of agency (consultant) for EIA/EMP

report. This goes through the entire process of advertising the press notice, sale of bidding

documents, pre-bid meeting, submission of tenders, evaluation of bids and notification of

results etc.

Preparation of Draft EIA/EMP (Environment Management Plan):- This stage involves the

preparation of the EIA/EMP report by the consultant and also involves the continuous review of

the various interim reports sent by the consultant to NVDA.

Approval of MoEF for Public Hearing: - Once the EIA/EMP ready MoEF gives the approval for

Public hearing to be conducted by MPPCB.

Conduction of Public Hearing by MPPCB: - MPPCB conducts the public hearing for the project at

the project site. It follows the procedure of advertising about the public hearing at least 30 days

in advance in one national and a regional daily and also mentioning the place where the relevant

documents are available so that the affected people and the general public can view and study

the documents.

Submission of Public Hearing documents, Modified EIA/EMP Reports, R&R Plan to Expert

Appraisal Committee (EAC) and MoEF:- The next step is the submission of all relevant

documents required for final appraisal. These include EIA/EMP Report, Public hearing

documents, R&R Plan, Command Area Treatment Plan (if required), and Dam Break Analysis (if

required).

EAC (Expert Appraisal Committee) accords the Environment Clearance for the Project or Rejects

the application or asks for further clarifications.

Delay in getting EC for NVDA projects

In order to understand the reasons for the delay in major NVDA projects, all written communications

between the various stakeholders were studied for three major projects namely Halon, Punasa and

LowerGoi. This was done to get an understanding if the chronological flow of events and to find the

actual bottlenecks in the process and whether these were at NVDA’s end or at MoEF’s end. This study

also gave an idea about the various reasons for the delay and how they can be avoided in future. These

will be discussed in detail in the next section. In terms of timelines the time taken for each stage of the

three projects are as below:

Figure - 8

Actual Timelines for Various Stages of EC With EIA Notification 1994 for LowerGoi

Site Clearance EIA/EMP Report Public Hearing Final Appraisal Total Time Taken

14 months 31 months 14 months 18 months 63 months

Actual Timelines for Various Stages of EC With EIA Notification 1994 for Punasa


2.5 months 20 months 4 months 13.5 months 36 months

Actual Timelines for Various Stages of EC With EIA Notification 1994 for Halon


28 months 28 months 31 months 0 58 months

Actual Timelines for Various Stages of EC With Notification 2006 for Halon( applied again under

notification 2006



The timelines mentioned above were far more than the expected timelines for both the notifications.

For both the notifications the total time for EC should not have exceeded 30 months. Please refer

Appendix 1 for the expected timelines for each stage of EC with EIA notification 1994 and 2006.

Reasons for Delay in getting EC for NVDA Projects

Over the course of this study various reasons have surfaced as possible reasons for the large time delay

in NVDA projects. These are:

1. Incorrect , Incomplete data filled in Questionnaires and Application Forms:- One of the prominent

reasons for time delay was the objections raised by MoEF and EAC on the questionnaire (under EIA

1994) and Form 1 (EIA 2006) submitted by NVDA during EC initiation. Each and every time a lot of

resource and time was spent at NVDA’s end to clarify these objections. Most of these objections

were due to inaccurate and incorrect data being filled in during the application level or due to

incomplete details in the forms. Appendix 4 has some common clarifications/objections that MoEF

has raised over the years for past projects of NVDA. There were cases where many times relevant

data had been left blank in the application form. Issues like incorrect botanical names of plants,

places should be rectified before forms are sent to MoEF and EAC for further action. This clearly

indicated a lack of expertise, knowledge at NVDA’s side.

2. EC processes under the EIA notifications not being followed properly: - This is a major cause of

delay for NVDA projects. In the case of LowerGoi Project (under EIA notification 1994) the public

hearing had to be conducted again as the first hearing was conducted without the submission of

draft EIA/EMP to MPPCB. This caused a delay of around 3-4 months which could have been avoided.

The situation was even worse for Halon Project in which 3 hearings had to be conducted. The first

one was rejected by MoEF as EIA/EMP had not been submitted to MPPCB at the time of the hearing.

The second one was conducted in only one district (Balaghat district of MP) whereas 2 districts

(Balaghat and Mandla) where being affected by the project and as per MoEF guidelines if more than

one district is being affected than public hearing need to be conducted separately in all districts. As

a result a third hearing was conducted separately in Mandla. All this could have been avoided if the

processes had been properly followed.

3. Inter-Departmental delays: - Another major cause of delay in getting EC has been the time

consumed by any communication to go from one department to another. Once any objections are

raised by MoEF the official letter and queries are first received by the E&F department which

forwards it to the respective department which will handle the query. This process is time

consuming, moreover work on any query starts only once the official note is received from the

concerned department. This was in major contrast to an organization like NHPC where employees

involved in the clearing process in most cases never waited for everything to come to them the

official route. On occasions they themselves reached out to the concerned person in any

department to resolve issues, not waiting for higher executives to get involved in the process. In

addition to these there were no deadlines on departments to resolve any queries/clarifications

required by the MoEF, this further added to the delay.

4. EIA/EMP stage of the Project: - This stage has been the bottleneck for most of NVDA projects.

Ideally this stage should not take more than 12-15 months to finish, but in the three projects

(LowerGoi, Punasa and Halon) studied it has taken 31 months, 20 months and 54 months

respectively. Refer to Figure-8 for data. There are many reasons for delay at this stage:

The number of interim reports submitted by the consultant and the time taken by NVDA

to review them has been a cause of major delay. The interim reports submitted at

various stages include inception report, baseline conditions report, draft report on

construction stage impacts, draft report on operation stage impacts, and draft EIA/EMP

Report, modified EIA/EMP report with public hearing comments included. All these

documents are sent by consultant to NVDA where they are reviewed and the review

comments are sent back to the consultant for incorporating them into the EIA Report.

The problem here is that although the time taken for sending review comments in

within 20 days of the submission of the interim report, in nearly all cases the review

comments have been sent for more than 1-2 months, sometimes even up to 6 months

from the time of submission of reports, Eg. Halon Project. This causes delay which is

cumulative in nature as sometimes by the time one interim report is reviewed by NVDA

and comments are sent back to the consultant they might be ready with the next report

and the changes made to one report might affect the other report as well. In fact the

draft EIA/EMP has all the earlier mentioned reports in it, so there are situations when

the draft EIA/EMP might be ready but it has to be changed because the comments on

the baseline report where received then. The table below would give a clearer picture as

to the different interim reports and their timelines as per the MoU between NVDA and

consultant.

Figure -9

S.NO Interim Report (in sequential order) Time Taken

1. Inception Report 1 month

2. Detailed Report of the Baseline Conditions 3.5 months

3. Draft Report of Construction Stage Impacts of the Project 1 month

4. Draft Report of Operation Stage Impacts of the Project 1 month

5. Draft EIA/EMP Report 1month

Another cause of delay at this stage has been lack of processes followed by the

consultant. Sometimes even after mentioning clearly in the MoU that all relevant

documents need to be prepared for the clearance process, it has been observed in the

past that the consultant have missed preparing important reports like Command Area

Development Plan, Rapid EIA (required for Public Hearing), Executive Summary etc. If

consultants ensure that these documents are also prepared on time simultaneously

along with the draft EIA/EMP report the delay caused due to preparation of these

documents later can be avoided.

5. Lack of Use of Information Technology at NVDA:- This is also a prominent reason for delays in

project EC. The major communication between various departments still happens through various

files which are routed through the hierarchy from one department to another. This was in striking

contrast to NHPC where employees had their individual email ids and communicated with each

other directly at times for queries and clarifications irrespective of their department. In fact

Mr.Bhatt at NHDC mentioned that within their internal teams they also use utilities like messengers

and communicators to pass on information and documents and it is not necessary for every piece of

communication to come from the top hierarchy. This not only saved time but also is more eco

friendly as this reduces the need for taking print outs again and again for each department as

documents could be read and reviewed online itself.

Methods to Reduce the Time Delay in EC Process In this section we will be discussing a few methods which can help in reducing the time delay that NVDA

has faced in its past projects.

1. Proper Training to Employees involved in the EC process: This step can help reduce the numerous

objections that the MoEF have raised in the application form in the past on account of inaccurate,

incorrect and incomplete data. It needs to be ensured that all the members involved in the EC of any

project are well versed with the salient features of the project, especially those who are involved in

filling the application forms and responsible for queries/clarification asked for by MoEF. It would be

good if workshop/trainings could be conducted for those directly involved in filling Form 1 where it

is clearly explained to them what MoEF is expecting as answers to each question in form 1 and how

each question needs to be answered. Moreover the team members also need to be properly

educated about the EC process as per the latest notification so that they have a clear idea what is

expected of them in each stage.

2. Setting up of a Core Group consisting of team members from all departments within NVDA:

Another important step that NVDA can take up is to setup a core group which consists of members

from various departments within the NVDA. This group would be directly responsible for all direct

communication between the NVDA and MoEF. The rationale behind the formation of such a group is

that EAC which reviews the application forms and the final appraisal process consists of experts

from various fields and hence they can ask for clarifications from any domain. In such a scenario if

the queries are directed to this group they can take up the issues directly among themselves due to

their varied expertise instead of one department passing information to other department and

waiting for a reply, which has been very time consuming in the past. For e.g., sometimes it happens

that the clarifications asked for by MoEF are technical in nature and hence the E&F department

cannot handle the queries, so it passes the queries to Engineering Department which is generally at

the site area. Now this process takes time, as the file goes from one office to another delaying the

entire process. In place of this had there been a core group at the main office itself the issues could

have been taken care of then and there without the delay. The team member with expertise in the

Engineering Domain could have been able to take up the queries and provide a clarification to them

at the earliest. Another advantage of having such a core group is that the members of various

departments can act as interfaces to their respective departments. They would have a clear idea as

to which member in their department is capable of handling certain queries and can redirect the

queries to the right person directly rather than waiting for the higher authorities to come into the

picture.

3. Preparation of Checklist consisting of all objections raised by MoEF: This is one task that has been

done as part of this study. A checklist has been prepared which consists of all the

objections/clarifications asked for by MoEF in past NVDA projects as well as all the objections raised

by MoEF in other River Valley Projects of India which have come for EC since October 2007. This

checklist has been divided into two sections: one for all those objections at TOR approval stage and

another one for all the objections at the Appraisal stage. In this way NVDA can ensure that it is not

making its mistakes of the past and that it is also ready for the possible queries that MoEF has asked

in other cases. One important activity that needs to be taken up by NVDA is to regularly update this

checklist from time to time to ensure that any new objections raised by MoEF is captured in the

checklist. Please Refer to Appendix 5 for the checklists.

4. Setting up smaller River Valley Projects: - One easier way to reduce delay is to take up smaller

projects than a large one. These would not fall in Category A as per EIA notification 2006 (Refer EIA

Notification 2006 for details regarding categories of projects) and hence their appraisal takes place

at State level and not at Central Level. The time delay in continuous communications with the MoEF

gets reduced this way. As per EIA notification 2006:

Category A : Projects “> 50 MW and > 10,000Ha of cultural command area”, require

clearance from MoEF

Category B : Projects “< 50 MW and > 25MW , < 10,000Ha of cultural command area”,

require clearance at State Level

This has a few benefits like the environment impact of a smaller project would be much less as

compared to a large project, lesser people would be affected by it. At the same time it needs to be

ensured that the cumulative impact of setting up too many small projects over a small river is not

more than one or two large projects.

5. Strict Deadlines: - It needs to be ensured that moving forward there are stricter deadlines

associated with any piece of work, be it replying to queries raised by MoEF or review comments to

be sent to the consultant for their interim reports. In comparison at NHDC the concerned

department/employee generally has a deadline of 10 days associated with any work within which

they either have to finish the work or give a proper clarification as to why the piece of work could

not be finished on time. Such measures need to be followed at NVDA also to ensure that future

projects do not end up having as much delay as those of the past.

6. Outsourcing the entire EC process: - This is a very radical way to reduce the delay but has been

followed by a few organizations of late. As part of this NVDA can give the responsibility to obtain EC

to a third part, which has the right credentials and expertise in getting the EC without much delay,

on its behalf in exchange for a certain amount of payment.

7. Reduce the number of interim reports in the EIA/EMP stage: - One cause of delay has been the

number of interim reports that the consultant needs to send in the EIA/EMP stage and the time

consumed due to the review comments sent by NVDA for months after the deadline gets over. This

results in constant changes in the final EIA/EMP report. Currently there are 5 main interim reports

(Refer Figure 9), this can be reduced to 2 reports: the baseline conditions report and the draft

EIA/EMP report. The reason to do away with the operation stage and construction stage impact

reports are that they are delivered within a span of 2 months along with the EIA/EMP report which

already would have all the data, hence it would be better to review the draft EIA report. In order to

have a regular update about the work going on at the consultant’s end more impetus must be given

to the monthly status reports.

8. Use of Technology: - Another step to reduce the delay would be to introduce the use of technology

within NVDA.

Use of email for communication between various departments instead of relying on the

current file system could be of great help.

Another problem faced has been the communication with the EIA consultant. As there are

many reports shared by the EIA consultant with NVDA it would be a good idea to have a

common online repository which can be accessed by both parties. Any changes or updates

can be done to the document on the common repository. This way both sided can eliminate

the need for sending various documents to each other by way of posts. All reports can be

uploaded by the EIA consultant at the common repository where NVDA departments can

review them and suggest changes. Many version control systems are available where both

the parties can share all common documents. Apache Subversion is one such system which

software developers use to maintain current and historical versions of files such as source

code, web pages, and documentation.

9. Speeding up the Tender Process for fixing the consultant for EIA/EMP: - In the past the NVDA has

taken a lot of time to fix the consultants for EIA/EMP. For LowerGoi, Punasa and Halon the time

taken from inviting tenders to the final signing of MoU with the consultant was around 6months.

This needs to be considerably reduced in future projects to around 1-2 months. The following figure

describes the tender process and the timelines.

Tender process and its respective timelines (Figure 10)

Thus we see that the tendering process can be reduced to around 2-3 months from its current

duration of around 5-6 months.

Comparison with NHPC One of the important aspects of this study was the comparison between the EC processes of NVDA with

NHPC. Unlike NVDA, NHPC is a public sector organization and hence it has a completely different setup

and work culture. The reason for opting for NHPC for a comparative study was the efficiency shown by

NHPC in getting EC for their River Valley Projects. NHPC projects like Kotlbhel Hydro Electric Project in

Tehri was cleared in its appraisal stage in 2 months, Siang Middle Project by NHPC was cleared in its

appraisal stage in 6 months etc, whereas the projects of NVDA like LowerGoi, Punasa, Halon etc have

taken around 10 months or more for their final appraisal stage. NHPC also has lesser delay for the

EIA/EMP stage as well. Some distinctions between the EC processes of both organizations are as

follows:

1. One of the basic reasons for the efficiency shown by NHPC has been the way their internal teams

are structured. Different teams have much more interactions with each other; also there I much

better knowledge sharing, for Eg. The design team has someone with a good understanding of the

engineering department and the engineer department has someone with understanding of the

forest or R&R department. This is because all the major documents like DPR, EIA and EMP are

linked. The DPR provides the details of the project, the EIA the impact and the EMP the

Particulars of Action Start Day

First Announcement Date 1

Commencement of Sale of RFQ documents

7

Last date of Sale of RFQ documents

22

Pre Bid conference 52

Submission of responses to RFQ 67

Opening of Responses to RFQ Proposal

67

Short Listing based on responses to RFQ

67

management plan for it. Unless there is proper coordination between the teams it can cause a lot of

inconsistencies in the data presented in the documents and the application form. Such cross

functional teams lead to better results at NHPC.

2. Each member involved in the EC process is well versed with the salient features of the project. This

ensures that when any form or note sheet is sent to different team members for their comments

they make sure that they provide the correct and accurate data about their subject.

3. Use of technology like messengers, emails to send files across departments ensures a lot of time is

saved in the process. Even with external consultants such methods are used frequently.

4. Facilitation: - In order to ensure that the consultant finishes their part of the work on time it is

ensured that all necessary help is provided to them. All relevant documents are sent beforehand, in

case the location is inaccessible for the consultant the NHPC team ensures they help them to reach

the place, the comments on the interim reports are provided on time. As a result the EIA/EMP part

is completed in around 18 months for almost all the projects.

5. One of the other methods used by NHPC to reduce the delay is to do away with the tendering

process for EIA/EMP. The job is directly awarded to any government institute, with the right kind of

credentials, in the state in which the project is. This is done as it is felt that the government institute

would be best suited to understand the local environment conditions better than any external

*consultant and also because it is expected that they would do an unbiased assessment.

6. The team members have strict deadline associated with their piece of work. Generally in case of any

queries/clarifications asked for by MoEF, the concerned member has to provide a reply within 10

days.

7. Another major difference is the work culture at NHPC. There was much more cooperation and

understanding at inter department level. We got to know from Mr. Devraj Barua, AM(Env),NHPC

that team members at times directly approach members from other departments if they know a

particular person could be of help for a piece of work. They don’t wait for note sheets to be sent

from one department to other for getting an urgent work done.

Some Recommendations for MoEF to Improve the

Process Further During the interactions with various experts as part of this study I came across many suggestions

whereby MoEF can improve the EC process further. Some of them are:

1. Online application form filling to reduce time further: - This calls for having facility for online

filling of form 1 and sending other documents online during the initiation process. This could

reduce the current time taken further as currently the forms are filled manually and posted to

MoEF.

2. Clearly defining “Go” and “No Go” Areas on MoEF website: - One problem which many project

proponents have faced in the past that their site locations are rejected by MoEF as the location

was not considered suitable for river valley projects. This causes lots of wastage in terms of

effort, time and cost. If MoEF can clearly specify “Go”, “No Go” areas in their website explicitly

then proponents would avoid such site locations totally.

3. MoEF can collect certain standard data through various institutes for eg. Seasonal data etc and

create a huge repository. This information then can be given to the project proponent for a cost.

Not only would this save time for proponents but by this MoEF can ensure that the data

collected is unbiased and correct.

References

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narmada_River

2. http://www.nih.ernet.in/nih_rbis/India_information/Narmada%20Water%20Dispute%20Tribunal.htm

3. http://www.nvda.in/the-nvda.htm

4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_assessment

5. http://164.100.194.13:8080/ssdn1/htmls/Guidance%20Manual.htm

6. http://moef.nic.in/modules/project-clearances/environment-clearances/

7. EIA practice in India and its evaluation using SWOT analysis, Ritu Paliwal

8. http://delhigreens.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/environmental-impact-assessment.pdf

9. http://www.novamining.com/Guidelines/Environmental%20Clearance.pdf

10. http://www.nhpcindia.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narmada_River



http://www.nvda.in/the-nvda.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_assessment

http://164.100.194.13:8080/ssdn1/htmls/Guidance%20Manual.htm

http://moef.nic.in/modules/project-clearances/environment-clearances/

http://delhigreens.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/environmental-impact-assessment.pdf

http://www.novamining.com/Guidelines/Environmental%20Clearance.pdf

http://www.nhpcindia.com/

Appendix

Appendix 1

Expected Timelines With Notification 1994


6 months 18 months 3 months 2-3 months 30 months

Expected Timelines With Notification 2006

Site Selection

and TOR

Approval

EIA/EMP Report Public Hearing Final Appraisal Total Time Taken


Appendix 2

a) Correspondence between MoEF and NVDA for LowerGoi Project

S.NO NVDA Letter Date

NVDA Letter Description MoEF Reply date

Corresponding MoEF Reply Description

1 24/10/2002

Letter from Member (E&F) to MoEF to start the Environment Clearance process along with Questionaire for Site Clearance

2/11/2002 MoEF replies to NVDA asking for the following : a) More details around the questionaire b) Extra Maps c) Comments by Forest Officer on site inspection

2 24/10/2002

Letter from Member (E&F) to MoEF to start the Environment Clearance process along with Questionaire for Site Clearance

9/12/2002 Letter from MoEF to NVDA citing problems in application for site clearance a) Break up of total project area of 13760km b) Maps showing the features of the project area within 7km of radius c) Details of any villages in the vicinity d) Details of Water Quality e) Flow rate during lean season

3 2/1/2003 NVDA to MoEF for site clearance with details requested in letter on 9/12/2002

9/1/2003 MoEF to NVDA requesting additonal information a) complete the questionnaire b) break up of area under submergence c) details about flora and fauna d) topography maps (1:25000) scale

4 24/10/2003

Letter to MoEF with details of letter sent by Chief Engineer on 10/10/03 and that sent by the MoEF on 9/1/2003

30/12/2003 Site Clearance Received (No construction possible as yet, EIA/EMP to be submitted within 18 months

5 Feb-05 NVDA to MoEF for appraisal since public hearing was conducted on 4/12/2004

10/3/2005 MoEF to NVDA asking for fresh hearing because: a) EIA report not made available at the time of public hearing on 4/12/2004 b) R & R plan not available

6 11/9/2006 NOC and Public hearing details made available by MPPCB to NVDA and MoEF

10/1/2007 MoEF informs NVDA that in the meeting on 20.12.2006 environmental clearance was not given due to some comments raised by Prof. S Basu and Dr. Sarkar on the EIA/EMP

7 7/3/2007 MoEF informs NVDA that if information is not provided for queries mentioned in the letter on 10/1/07 the file would be closed

8 21/3/2007 NVDA to MoEF, clarifications on queries raised by MoEF

30/4/2007 MoEF mentions it needs further details in its meeting held on 18.4.2007 a) Study of 10km periphery as per new notification b) Study of Wildlife affected c) Dam Break Analysis d) Monsoon season data e) R & R Plan f) Plan for Surface Drainage

9 4/4/2007 Request from NVDA to MoEF to not to close the file

10 9/7/2007 NVDA to MoEF , clarifications on issues raised in the meeting of EAC on 18.4.2007

3/8/2007 Dam Break Analysis and Disaster Management Plan required by MoEF

11 23/11/2007

All the relevant documents and information sent to MoEF

17/1/2008 Environment Clearance Accorded

Abstract (LOWERGOI)

Time Taken by MoEF 45 days Reply to letter dated 24.10.2002

7 days Reply to letter dated 2.1.2003







Total time by MoEF 451 days

or 15 months

Total Time for Environment Clearance of LowerGoi

63 months

Time Taken by NVDA, i.e, (Total time Taken - Time taken by MoEF)

48 months

b) Correspondence between MoEF and NVDA for Punasa Project

S.NO

NVDA Letter Date



1 16/7/2004

Application for Environment Clearance of Punasa Project, NVDA to MOEF

4/8/2004 MoEF to NVDA requesting additonal information a) Length of main canal and Nature of Canal b) How drinking water would be supplied to 255 villages c)proposed 35008 ha area is gross command area, confirmation required. d)Role of balancing reservior proposed e) Map not legible f) Location of village to be indicated properly on the maps

2 24/8/2004

NVDA to MoEF, with clarification of all its queries

27/9/2004 Site Clearance Accorded by MoEF to NVDA for Punasa Project

3 7/6/2005 MPPCB to MOEF and NVDA , NOC of Public hearing

4 2/2/2006 NVDA to MoEF - EIA/EMP Report - Public hearing documents

2/3/2006 MoEF to NVDA mentioning that the questionaires, public hearing documents have not been receieved by it, also for the EIA report it is not clear how many seasons have been surveyed, exec summary of EIA not submitted

5 10/3/2006 and 28/3/2006

NVDA to MoEF mentioning that questionaire , public hearing documents have already been sent earlier and the EIA summary would be submitted shortly

29/3/2006 MoEF to NVDA mentioning that the EAC meeting for Punasa would be held on 19.4.2006

6 1/5/2006 MoEF to NVDA - documents not received on time, on 19th April 2006 only - next meeting on 17.5.2006

7 6/5/2006 NVDA to MoEF confirming docs sent 31/5/2006 MoEF to NVDA, following comments raised 1) figure of land given is inaccurate 2) No. of families affected is 388 instead of 122 3) Irrelevant information in the questionaire at some places 4) Data for terestrial flora and fauna not verified after directly using it from the forest department data 5) Incorrect names used at places 6) Catchment areas of balancing reservoirs not studied for soil erosion and treatment 7) Poor Map Quality , no evidence of GIS survey 8) Incorrect botanical names of plants 9) Plantation for canal bank, acacia should be avoided 10) Copied material from other project 11) FCC , land cover maps not available 12) Quantitative analysis of natural vegetation should be planned 13) Submit in tabular form original land holding of PAF 14) Available ground water potential, number of ground water structures feasible and conjuctive use of water should be mentioned 15) Recheck soil phosphate and report all figures in terms of kg. of available Nitrogen and Phosphate 16) River water quality does not show coliform count, turbidity

exceeds twice the permissible limit for C grade water 17) Flow velocity in canal missing 18) Plantation of eucalyptus to be avoided as it is a water exhausitng plant

8 18/12/2006

NVDA to MoEF, clarifications to queries raised in the letter on 31.5.2006

23/1/2007 MoEF asks for further clarifications - FCC not proper - Additional information on bio diversity and conservation - Micro flora fauna information - density , frequency and abundance - IVI, Shannon Weaver biodiversity indices to be measured for all vegetation types - Maps to be submitted - Groundwater details

9 7/3/2007 MoEF to NVDA asking for clarifications for its queries in letter on 23.1.2007 in two weeks, else it will close the file

10 3/4/2007 NVDA to MoEF requesting not to close

the file

11 1/5/2007 NVDA to MoEF requesting not to close the file

12 7/5/2007 Information submitted by NVDA to MoEF

16/7/2007 MoEF Accords Environment Clearance to Punasa Project

Abstract (PUNASA) Time Taken by MoEF 19 days Reply to letter dated

16.7.2004







Total time by MoEF 8.5 months 250 days

Total Time for Environment Clearance of Punasa

36 months


27.5 months

c) Correspondence between MoEF and NVDA for Halon Project

S.NO

NVDA Letter Date



1 6/3/2002 Application process for Environment Clearance of Halon Project begins from NVDA's end, All relevant documents sent to MoEF

15/3/2002 MoEF to NVDA requesting clarification a) confusion in the area of project mentioned for total project and for irrigation b) break up of the area under existing land usage c) Reasons for not considering alternate sites d) Comments receieved from Director , Kanha, MP and Chief Wildlife Warden, MP

2 22/8/2003 NVDA to MoEF, clarification sent for the queries of MoEF

18/11/2003 MoEF to NVDA , Site clearance accorded for Halon Project

3 11/2/2004 ,7/3/2004 , 15/3/2004

NVDA to MoEF, requesting permission for construction purposes at Halon Site

8/7/2004 MoEF to NVDA , no constuction at site possible until EC is accorded

4 11/2/2005 MPPCB to NVDA and MoEF, NOC sent for public hearing conducted on 15.12.2004

5 10/3/2005 MoEF asks for a fresh public hearing as the EIA/EMP was not submitted at that time

6 10/11/2006

NVDA to MoEF, informing that documents have been submitted for the fresh public hearing

14/11/2006 MoEF to NVDA mentioning that TOR needs to be examined on the basis of Notification- 2006

7 10/1/2007 MoEF sets additional 14 TORs for Halon

8 14/8/2007 NVDA requests some clarification in TOR from MoEF

5/9/2007 Clarification to NVDAs queries by MoEF

5/3/2009 WAPCOS to NVDA , EIA/EMP , Executive Summary sent , NVDA sends all the relevant documents to MoEF

9 9/3/2009 MPPCB sends proceeedings of public hearing to MoEF and NVDA

10 16/3/2009 MoEF mentions that Halon would not be considered for the meeting on 19/20th March

11 3/6/2009 (meeting held on 14.5.2009)

MoEF to NVDA requesting clarification on the following: - Public hearing was conducted in on district Balaghat only and not in Mandla which was the other district being affected, why is this so? - Gross Comand Area, CCA and ICA not mentioned properly - Compensation package must be better than NRRP-2007 - Baseline data should provide information about data and time of monitoring - Details of degraded forest, local fish required - factors affecting drinking water, steps to mitigate them

12 29/6/2009 MoEF mentions that only one public hearing was conducted whereas 2 were required

13 24/8/2009 MPPCB forwards public hearing details of latest hearing to MoEf, NVDA

14/9/2009 MoEF needs further clarifications as replies provided during the public heairng were not proper

14 4/11/2009 Chief Engineer(NVDA) to MoEF, clarifications to queries raised by MoEF

4/1/2010 Environment Clearance Accorded, letter by MoEF in the EAC meeting held on 16/11/2009

Abstract (HALON)

Time Taken by MoEF 9 days Reply to letter dated 6.3.2002









Total time by MoEF 510 days

or 17 months

Total Time for Environment Clearance of Halon

94 months


77 months

Appendix 3

PROCEDURE FOR CONDUCT OF PUBLIC HEARING

1.0 The Public Hearing shall be arranged in a systematic, time bound and transparent manner ensuring

widest possible public participation at the project site(s) or in its close proximity District -wise, by the

concerned State Pollution Control Board (SPCB) or the Union Territory Pollution Control Committee

(UTPCC).

2. 0 The Process:

2.1 The Applicant shall make a request through a simple letter to the Member Secretary of the SPCB or

Union Territory Pollution Control Committee, in whose jurisdiction the project is located, to arrange the

public hearing within the prescribed statutory period. In case the project site is extending beyond a

State or Union Territory, the public hearing is mandated in each State or Union Territory in which the

project is sited and the Applicant shall make separate requests to each concerned SPCB or UTPCC for

holding the public hearing as per this procedure.

2.2 The Applicant shall enclose with the letter of request, at least 10 hard copies and an equivalent

number of soft (electronic) copies of the draft EIA Report with the generic structure given in Appendix III

of EIA Notification 2006 including the Summary Environment Impact Assessment report in English and in

the local language, prepared strictly in accordance with the Terms of Reference communicated after

Scoping (Stage-2). Simultaneously the applicant shall arrange to forward copies, one hard and one soft,

of the above draft EIA Report along with the Summary EIA report to the Ministry of Environment and

Forests and to the following authorities or offices, within whose jurisdiction the project will be located:

(a) District Magistrate/s

(b) Zila Parishad or Municipal Corporation

(c) District Industries Office

(d) Concerned Regional Office of the Ministry of Environment and Forests

2.3 On receiving the draft Environmental Impact Assessment report, the abovementioned authorities

except the MoEF, shall arrange to widely publicize it within their respective jurisdictions requesting the

interested persons to send their comments to the concerned regulatory authorities. They shall also

make available the draft EIA Report for inspection electronically or otherwise to the public during

normal office hours till the Public Hearing is over. The Ministry of Environment and Forests shall

promptly display the Summary of the draft Environmental Impact Assessment report on its website, and

also makethe full draft EIA available for reference at a notified place during normal office hours in the

Ministry at Delhi.

2.4 The SPCB or UTPCC concerned shall also make similar arrangements for giving publicity about the

project within the State/Union Territory and make available the Summary of the draft Environmental

Impact Assessment report for inspection in select offices or public libraries or panchayats etc. They shall

also additionally make available a copy of the draft Environmental Impact Assessment report to the

above five authorities/offices viz, Ministry of Environment and Forests, District Magistrate etc.

3.0 Notice of Public Hearing:

3.1 The Member-Secretary of the concerned SPCB or UTPCC shall finalize the date, time and exact venue

for the conduct of public hearing within 7(seven) days of the date of receipt of the draft Environmental

Impact Assessment report from the project proponent, and advertise the same in one major National

Daily and one Regional vernacular Daily. A minimum notice period of 30(thirty) days shall be provided to

the public for furnishing their responses;

3.2 The advertisement shall also inform the public about the places or offices where the public could

access the draft Environmental Impact Assessment report and the Summary Environmental Impact

Assessment report before the public hearing.

3.3 No postponement of the date, time, venue of the public hearing shall be undertaken, unless some

untoward emergency situation occurs and only on the recommendation of the concerned District

Magistrate the postponement shall be notified to the public through the same National and Regional

vernacular dailies and also prominently displayed at all the identified offices by the concerned SPCB or

Union Territory Pollution Control Committee;

3.4 In the above exceptional circumstances fresh date, time and venue for the public consultation shall

be decided by the Member –Secretary of the concerned SPCB or UTPCC only in consultation with the

District Magistrate and notified afresh as per procedure under 3.1 above.

4.0 The Panel

4.1 The District Magistrate or his or her representative not below the rank of an Additional District

Magistrate assisted by a representative of SPCB or UTPCC, shall supervise and preside over the entire

public hearing process.

5.0 Videography

5.1 The SPCB or UTPCC shall arrange to video film the entire proceedings. A copy of the videotape or a

CD shall be enclosed with the public hearing proceedings while forwarding it to the Regulatory Authority

concerned.

6.0 Proceedings

6.1 The attendance of all those who are present at the venue shall be noted and annexed with the final

proceedings.

6.2 There shall be no quorum required for attendance for starting the proceedings.

6.3 A representative of the applicant shall initiate the proceedings with a presentation on the project

and the Summary EIA report.

6.4 Every person present at the venue shall be granted the opportunity to seek information or

clarifications on the project from the Applicant. The summary of the public hearing proceedings

accurately reflecting all the views and concerns expressed shall be recorded by the representative of the

SPCB or UTPCC and read over to the audience at the end of the proceedings explaining the contents in

the vernacular language and the agreed minutes shall be signed by the District Magistrate or his or her

representative on the same day and forwarded to the SPCB/UTPCC concerned.

6.5 A Statement of the issues raised by the public and the comments of the Applicant shall also be

prepared in the local language and in English and annexed to the proceedings:

6.6 The proceedings of the public hearing shall be conspicuously displayed at the office of the Panchyats

within whose jurisdiction the project is located, office of the concerned Zila Parishad, District Magistrate

,and the SPCB or UTPCC . The SPCB or UTPCC shall also display the proceedings on its website for general

information. Comments, if any, on the proceedings which may be sent directly to the concerned

regulatory authorities and the Applicant concerned.

7.0 Time period for completion of public hearing

7.1 The public hearing shall be completed within a period of 45 (forty five) days from date of receipt of

the request letter from the Applicant. Therefore the SPCB or UTPCC concerned shall sent the public

hearing proceedings to the concerned regulatory authority within 8(eight) days of the completion of the

public hearing .The applicant may also directly forward a copy of the approved public hearing

proceedings to the regulatory authority concerned along with the final Environmental Impact

Assessment report or supplementary report to the draft EIA report prepared after the public hearing

and public consultations.

7.2 If the SPCB or UTPCC fails to hold the public hearing within the stipulated 45(forty five) days, the

Central Government in Ministry of Environment and Forests for Category ‘A’ project or activity and the

State Government or Union Territory Administration for Category ‘B’ project or activity at the request of

the SEIAA, shall engage any other agency or authority to complete the process, as per procedure laid

down in this notification.

Appendix 4

Clarifications/Objections raised by MoEF for past NVDA Projects

S.NO Clarification / Objectives Stage of the Project

1 Comments from Forest Officer on the site area to be provided Site Clearance

2 Additional Maps to be provided Site Clearance

3 Proper break up of total project area to be given Site Clearance

4 Maps showing the features of the project area within 10 km radius Site Clearance

5 Details of any villages in the vicinity Site Clearance

6 Details of water quality Site Clearance

7 Flow rate during the peak and lean season Site Clearance

8 Topography maps (1:25000 scale) Site Clearance

9 Break up of total area of submergence Appraisal Stage

10 Details of flora and fauna in the project area Appraisal Stage

11 EIA , R&R Plan must be available with MPPCB at the time of public hearing Appraisal Stage

12 Dam Break Analysis Appraisal Stage

13

Monsoon season data, all 3 major seasons to be covered in the EIA/EMP, namely pre-monsoon season, post monsoon season and the monsoon season Appraisal Stage

14 Plan for surface drainage Appraisal Stage

15 Length of main canal must be specified properly in the questionaire Site Clearance

15 The plan for providing the drinking water to nearby villages, towns Site Clearance

16 Differentiate properly between gross command area, cultural command area Site Clearance

17 Role of balanced reservoir (in case of projects similar to Punasa) Site Clearance

18 Maps being sent to MoEF should be clear and legible, Land cover maos to be made available Site Clearance

19 IVI, Shannon Weaver biodiversity indices to be measured for all Appraisal Stage

vegetation type

20 Groundwater details Appraisal Stage

21 Avoid using incorrect names for places and incorrect botanical names of plants and animals Appraisal Stage

22 Soil phosphate data needs to be checked and the figures to be reported in in terms of kg. of available Nitrogen and Phosphate Appraisal Stage

23

Correct details of PAF (Project Affected Families) need to be submitted, original land holding details of PAF to be submitted in proper tabular form Appraisal Stage

24 Plantation of eucalyptus to be avoided as it exhauts water Appraisal Stage

25 Catchment area studied properly for soil erosion and treatment Appraisal Stage

26 GIS data submitted to MoEF Appraisal Stage

27 River water quality data mentions about coliform count, turbidity data must not exceed twice the permissible limit for C grade water Appraisal Stage

28 Reasons for not considering alternate sites Site Clearance

29 Details of degraded forest, local fish data to be made available Scoping (TOR)

30 Factors affecting drinking water, steps to mitigate them Scoping (TOR)

31 If more than one district is being affected then the public hearing needs to be conducted in all districts and not just one of them Scoping (TOR)

32 Data should be submitted for all 3 seasons, pre-monsoon, monsoon, post monsoon Scoping (TOR)

33 Soil data is incomplete and the Phosphorous content needs to be specified properly Scoping (TOR)

34 Estimated flow data dependable only 1984-85, recent data not available Scoping (TOR)

35 Ground water data only upto 1997, recent data not mentioned Scoping (TOR)

36

Surface Water Quality exceeds the permissible limits of Calcium and Magnesium, no data on coliform count and heavy metals like Copper,Zinc Scoping (TOR)

37

Productivity of Kharif vegetable must increase after irrigation changes, moreover productivity of peas and pulses should also increase Scoping (TOR)

38 1000 cases of Malaria and 19 cases of Malarial death report, flow rate to be maintained properly Scoping (TOR)

39 Mention the year of meteorological data Scoping (TOR)

40 Sedimentary rate based on some other project site hence not a representation of Narmade Project site Scoping (TOR)

41 Detailed quantitative vegetation analysis for density, abundance, diversity to be carried out and status of species to be shown clearly Scoping (TOR)

42 Land requirement for canal Scoping (TOR)

43 Commitment for Govt. of MP for the allocation of Pumps, provide energy for consumption and use of water Appraisal Stage

44 Command Area Development Plan to be submitted Appraisal Stage

45 Dam Break Analysis and Disaster Management Plan to be submitted along with EIA/EMP Scoping (TOR)

Appendix 5

a) Checklist for TOR Approval Stage by MoEF

S.NO Checklist Item

1 Comments from the Forest Officer on the site should be provided

2 Additional Maps must be provided to MoEF

3 Proper break up of total project area should be mentioned in the form 1

4 Maps showing the features of the project area within 10 km radius should be provided to MoEF

5 Details of any villages in the vicinity needs to be provided along with the form

6 Details of water quality must be prepared

7 Flow rate during the peak and lean season should be provided

8 Topography maps (1:25000 scale) must be prepared and provided to MoEF

9 Length of main canal must be specified properly in the questionaire

10 The plan for providing the drinking water to nearby villages, towns must be mentioned

11 Gross command area, cultural command area etc must be properly mentioned in the questionnaire/form

12 Role of balanced reservoir (in case of projects similar to Punasa) must be clearly mentioned

13 Maps being sent to MoEF should be clear and legible, Land cover maps should be made available

14 Reasons for not considering alternate sites should be clearly mentioned

15 Details of degraded forest, local fish data must be made available

16 Factors affecting drinking water and steps to mitigate them should be clearly stated

17 If more than one district is being affected then the public hearing needs to be conducted in all districts and not just one of them

18 Data should be submitted for all 3 seasons, pre-monsoon, monsoon, post monsoon

19 Soil data must be complete and the Phosphorous content needs to be specified properly as per requirements of MoEF

20 Flow data provided should be recent

21 Ground Water data provided must be recent

22 Surface Water Quality needs to be re-acessed if it exceeds the permissible limits of Calcium and Magnesium, data on coliform count and heavy metals like Copper,Zinc should be specified

23 The year of meteorological data should be mentioned clearly

24 Detailed quantitative vegetation analysis for density, abundance, diversity needs to be carried out and status of species should be shown clearly

25 Land requirement for canal should be clearly specified

26 Dam Break Analysis and Disaster Management Plan need be submitted along with EIA/EMP, must be mentioned in the TORs

27 Price level mentioned should be for current years and not old data

28 Preparedness to avert crisis like earhtquake , land slide etc. in case blasting operations are required during construction phase must be mentioned in EIA report

29 Physiochemical analysis of the river water shall be performed

30 Minimum lean Season discharge in the deprived reach between the barrage and the tail race discharge point may be indicated.

31 Drinking Water Provision should be a part of the project

32 Detailed vegetation analysis & Phyto sociological studies should be done

33 E.M.P. must include 1) Conservation of the habitat in the project area; protection of the sanctuary; 2) conservation of RET species and medicinal plants to be prepared in consultation with the Forest & Wildlife Department

34 Groundwater Table, groundwater quality, soil phsio-chemical properties of the pre irrigation time, command area planned to be irrigated etc should have a common time platform or atleast the same cultivation season.

35 For Irrigation Project the following data must be present In the EIA/EMP major issues to be discussed in the EIA and action to be suggested in the EMP with respect to the proposed command area are: - land slope groups, soil erosivity, - requirement of land development for efficient irrigation (land leveling, grading, etc.) and which department willundertake such activities, - water allocation and distribution pattern, - lining of the open on-farm conveyance system after water is discharged from the closed conduit, - conjunctive use of surface and groundwater if the latter is available for pumping from dug wells or tube wells , - the scope and programme of introducing water use-efficient irrigation systems such as sprinkler and drip systems

36 In case of very large irrigation coverage area it might result in a water table increase in the region, the impact of this and a proper drainage mechanism needs to be prepared

37 Details of release of water from the dam should be prepared

38 Whether minimum water discharge during lean season is adequate to meet the aquatic life should be assessed

39 Rare, endangered and threatened species of trees must be mentioned

40 Under hydrology detailed yield, silt observation needs to be given

41 Actual water requirement by different sectors (environmental need, human need, cattle need, need to support aquatic vegetation and other lives such as fish, etc.) in case a long stretch of river should be mentioned

42 Flow and sediment load data collection should be done during the EIA study

43 When most of the catchment area comes in another state , its important to get a letter submitted from that state informing that the treatment of degraded catchment area would be taken up by them

44 Development of waterlogging and soil salinity sooner or later arising out of surface irrigation activity should be addressed and mitigating measures spelt

45 Silt yield index method for total catchment area to be considered.

46 Sub-catchment-wise soil erosion categories and CAT plan should be worked out by adopting the SYI method of AISLUS.

47 Location maps, lay out map, soil map, drainage map, and FCC from satellite data to show land use, land cover details should be provided to MoEF

48 Documentation of all group of plants under Terrestrial Ecology, endemic and RET species must be specified

49 Land Environment should include maps soil, contour, drainage vegetation, forest, land use land cover, RS imageries, GIS overlays

50 Inconsistency in data mentioned in PFR and the presentation made should be avoided

51 Frequency of sampling and number of sampling for each season be reported in the EIA.

52 Diversion of water will change downstream water availability, therefore this aspect should be included in the EIA/EMP.

53 Biological Environment should include inventorization of all groups of plants (Angiosperms to Algae/ Fungi), Shannon-Wiener index for biological diversity of the vegetation, IVI of major species, Economically important plants, medicinal plants, NTFPs; Wildlife , fauna to include all groups of animals, RET species, as per Red data list and category as per Wildlife Protection Act.

54 Management Plan for mitigating the problems arising out of impoundment of water vis-a-vis waterborne diseases should be provided in EMP

55 Quality of satellite imagery needs to be good

56 Compensatory Afforestation Plan, to be prepared in consultation with the Forest Department should be provided to MoEF. Planting density to be decided based on the crown density of the area to be afforested; exotics to be excluded from the species list.

57 Management Plan for fishes needs to be focussed on the riverine water than reservoir water

58 The tables of monsoon and lean season discharges and releases should be clearly mentioned

59 On CAT plan, while consultation with the State Forest Department it is imperative that the watershed categorization into various erosion classes is to be done adopting the SYI method of the AISLUS.

60 Daily Rainfall Records should be mentioned

61 Economic viability needs elaboration

62 There must be a clear map showing the sites of the proposed dams, the corresponding reservoir boundaries, the rivers on which they are to be constructed, the scheme of pumping and lifting water, the command area boundaries and the scheme of water distribution.

63 Primary data should be collected on silt flow across the proposed dam site during the one year EIA Study

64 Estimation of green house gas emission from reservoir should be included. .

65 Tabular information of monthly average flow of perennial nallahs (10 daily discharge) to be included in the TOR

66 Executive Summary must contain important issues on CAT, Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology and other issues critical for environmental safety evaluation

67 Data of species found in the area should be depicted altitude-wise and family-wise

68 The threat status/ categories of the species should also be given as per the IUCN/ BSI criteria including list of endemic species

69 The details regarding area proposed for compensatory afforestation should be explicitly mentioned for better understanding of area calculations for compensatory afforestation

70 Details of forest land acquisition should be given along with land use, land cover pattern of the project area.

71 A scientific study should be done on downstream requirement of water to decide minimum assured release of water for maintaining the aquatic life in the river

b) Checklist for Project Appraisal Stage

S.NO Checklist Item

1 Break up of total area of submergence should be provided

2 Details of flora and fauna in the project area needs to be specifed

3 EIA , R&R Plan must be available with MPPCB at the time of public hearing

4 Dam Break Analysis needs to be prepared with EIA/EMP

5 Plan for surface drainage should be included in the EIA/EMP

6 IVI, Shannon Weaver biodiversity indices should be measured for all vegetation type

7

Avoid using incorrect names for places and incorrect botanical names of plants and animals

8 Soil phosphate data needs to be checked and the figures should be reported in in terms of kg. of available Nitrogen and Phosphate

9 Correct details of PAF (Project Affected Families) should be submitted, original land holding details of PAF must be submitted in proper tabular form

10 Plantation of eucalyptus should be avoided as it exhauts water

11 Catchment area should be studied properly for soil erosion and treatment

12 GIS data submitted must be submitted MoEF

13 River water quality data mentions about coliform count, turbidity data must not exceed twice the permissible limit for C grade water

14 Commitment for Govt. of MP for the allocation of Pumps, provide energy for consumption and use of water

15 Command Area Development Plan should be submitted to MoEF

16 Actual location of the sampling sites of the flora and fauna needs to be mentioned clearly

17 Details about the number of water bodies that are going to be submerged should be clearly mentioned

18 Bio-diversity management plan and fisheries management plan should be in place

19 Site specific seismic study needs to be done

20 Dam Break Analysis and disaster management plan should be prepared

21 Rainfall data should be collected for minimum 25 years (project was in Manipur, Mizoram)

22 Compensatory afforestation plan needs to be submitted

23 Water logging in the area needs to be studied

24 Adopting water-saving irrigation systems (micro-irrigation, e.g., drip, sprinkler) to enhance the command area, especially in drought prone regions should be specified

25 Disaster should be quantified in terms of structural failures, particularly if lose of human lives is apprehended

26 Provision for fish ladder should be made

27 List of number of trees, methodology adopted for animal spotting to be specified needs to be specified clearly

28 Total Water Discharge should be specified with reference to the hydrological studies

29 Suitable compensatory package for project affected families needs to be worked-out over and above the NPRR 2007 with specific budget provisions and must be mentioned clearly in the R&R Plan

30 Proposed check dams for fish management is not acceptable. Provision for fish ladder / fish pass or fish hatchery for fish migration needs to be there.

31 After the notice of public hearing is issued 30 days should be given to people to lodge their complaints

32 Detailed map on the toposheet showing the area to be submerged with overlays of different forest types as per ownership status along with the extent of such forests and location of wildlife sanctuaries, if any and identifying the number of villages and sampling sites should be submitted.

33 The submersion details of reserve forest, protected forest and unclaissified forest be clearly shown in a reservoir submergence map and location of compensatory afforestation over degraded area must also be shown on the catchment map

34 Location and extent of compensatory afforestation programme with names of identified species needs to be clearly mentioned

35 Catchment area treatment plan must be made only once study has been undertaken on the erodability level, IU/LC of catchment area

36 The surface water samples need to be analysed for biological parameters like total and faecal Coliforms even

37 The location and networking of the distributary canal from the proposed reservoir to the command area should be provided

38 Ensure English and Hindi versions of public hearing are identical

39 Public hearing proceeding must contain the attendance sheet of the public present during the public hearing.

40 Fishery Management Plan should include local fishes. The plan should attend the problem of native species

41 Clarify whether the minimum assured water level is adequate for migratory fish and other aquatic life

42 In case any wildlife sanctuary is nearby the project area then special care needs to be taken to minimise any effects to the sanctuary - For conserving the flora and fauna of the Wildlife Sanctuary, habitat improvement project agency has to commit for the cost of the project - No blasting for construction of road/ tunnels etc. shall be done during winter season in the periphery of sanctuary area i.e. 2.5 km of the area - No labour camps shall be set up in to periphery of Wildlife Sanctuary areas i.e. in the 2.5 kms of the area - No tree felling in around 2.5 km of the wildlife sanctuary area should be done - During execution if needed Chief Wildlife Warden/ Conservator of Forests, National Park may stipulate any condition which is necessary for the protection/ welfare of flora and fauna of the wildlife sanctuary area

43 Site specific studies needs to be carried out for the estimation of earthquake parameters. The dam is then designed to resist earthquake forces.

44 High Sodium content in irrigation water is detrimental for heavy soils, which are present in the command area. The detailed mitigative measures & action plan to address the issue should be provided.

45 pH value greater than 8 and sometimes greater than 8.5 and also high electrically conductivity (EC), coupled with heavy soil of the command area requires special attention to irrigation water application in the command area. Specific measures planned on this should be explained in the EIA/EMP

46 Land acquisition from a person if more than 75 % of his land holding, should be treated as fully affected person and the number of such persons along with the name and land holding should be furnished

47 Soil Sampling location map should be provided to MoEF

48 Alternate arrangements for the migratory fishes should be given to MoEF

49 Installation of adequate number of micro stations for seismic monitoring should be mentioned in the EIA/EMP

50 Feasibility of conjunctive water use must be assessed

Appendix 6

Chronological flow of all communications between all the stakeholders involved in the EC process for

LowerGoi, Punasa and Halon Projects.

Site Clearance Process for Lower Goi Irrigation Project

S.NO Event Date Comments

1 Letter from Member (E&F) to Chief Engineer to provide relevant information required for site clearance from MoEF

24/10/2002

2 Letter from Member (E&F) to MoEF to start the Environment Clearance process along with Questionaire for Site Clearance

24/10/2002

3 Letter from Chief Engineer to Member (E & F) with relevant maps and other documents for Site Clearance

27/10/2002

4 MoEF replies to NVDA asking for the following : a) More details around the questionaire b) Extra Maps c) Comments by Forest Officer on site inspection

2/11/2002

5 Confirmation whether forest land comes under the project or not (Member to chief Engineer)

7/11/2002

6 Letter to Chief Engineer by Member (E & F) based on details of inspection by Mr. L K Wagh and his comments

13/11/2002

7 Letter from Member ( E & F) to Chief Engineer requiring documents to be sent to All India Soil and Land Use Survey (AISLUS)

30/11/2002

8 Letter from Member (Engg.) to Chief Engineer to provide the relevant documents to Member (E & F)

5/12/2002

9 Letter by NVDA to AISLUS to provide prioritization reports of the catchment area of Lower Goi Project with reference to Submergence of Lower Goi Dam

7/12/2002

10 Letter from MoEF to NVDA citing problems in application for site clearance a) Break up of total project area of 13760km b) Maps showing the features of the project area within 7km of radius c) Details of any villages in the vicinity d) Details of Water Quality e) Flow rate during lean season

9/12/2002

11 Letter from AISLUS to NVDA assuring the suvey would be done in a week

10/12/2002

12 Copy to chief Engineer 12/12/2002

13 Letter by Chief Engineer to Member ( E & F) with details to the queries asked by MoEF

23/12/2002

14 Letter from Member (E & F) to Chief Engineer for further details on the letter on 23.12.2002

28/12/2002

15 Reply from Chief engineer for letter sent on 7.11.2002, along with the reply by Tehsildar from Bhadwaani and Nyayalaya Tehsildaar Rajpur

28/12/2002

16 NVDA to MoEF for site clearance with details requested in letter on 9/12/2002

2/1/2003

17 MoEF to NVDA requesting additonal information a) complete the questionnaire b) break up of area under submergence c) details about flora and fauna d) topography maps (1:25000) scale

9/1/2003

18 Letter to Chief Engineer from Member (E & F) providing information asked for by MoEF on 9.1.2003

20/3/2003

19 Letter to Chief Engineer from Member (E & F) providing information asked for by MoEF on 9.1.2003 and 20.3.2003

29/5/2003

20 Letter to Chief Engineer from Member (E & F) providing information asked for by MoEF on 9.1.2003 and 20.3.2003 and 29.5.2003

12/6/2003

21 Letter to MoEF with details of letter sent by Chief Engineer on 10/10/03 and that sent by the MoEF on 9/1/2003

24/10/2003

22 Site Clearance Received (No construction possible as yet, EIA/EMP to be submitted within 18 months

30/12/2003

EIA EMP events in chronological order for LowerGoi Project


1 Invitation of tenders from various consultants 5/2/2004

2 MoU Signing with SFRI 28/7/2004

3 Sanction Amount 3/8/2004

4 Inception report sent by SFRI 26/8/2004

5 Request release of first installment 3/9/2004

6 Request for DPR, maps etc by SFRI from NVDA 3/9/2004

7 Letter for confirmation of bank guarantee 22/9/2004

8 Bank Reply 25/9/2004

9 Amount Cheque 11/10/2004

10 Confirmation of amount received by SFRI along with a request for a checklist

19/10/2004

11 Request by NVDA to SFRI for docs abouts details of project team, work plan in the form of bar charts, draft of study

16/11/2004

report

12 Progress Report 17/11/2004

13 Submission of reports 27/11/2004

14 Baseline Report sent by SFRI 5/2/2005

15 Request from SFRI for stufy by AISLUS and installments 2/3/2005

16 Request for status review of SFRI by NVDA 5/3/2005

17 Changes sent to SFRI on baseline study 11/3/2005

18 SFRI requests for additonal information from the engg. Dept

16/3/2005

19 Baseline Report with incorporated comments sent by SFRI to NVDA

30/3/2005

20 Changes in baseline study sent by Rehab Dept. 30/3/2005

21 Request for Rapid EIA by NVDA for public hearing planned on 28/7/04

18/5/2005

22 Letter for 10% back guarantee 6/6/2005

23 SFRI sends Rapid EIA report to NVDA 13/6/2005

24 Rapid EIA and Reahb plan forwarded to Chief Engineer 15/6/2005

25 Letter confirming te receving of back guarantee by NVDA 9/6/2005

26 Request for remaining back guarantee 11/7/2005

27 Letter by Member (E & F) to DFO to forward the second and third installments to SFRI

26/7/2005

28 Amount sent to SFRI 26/7/2005

29 EMP sent by SFRI, request for 4th installment 3/8/2005

27 Request for 4th and 5th installment by SFRI 31/8/2005

28 R&R plan sent by NVDA to SFRI for incorporating it in the report

22/12/2005

29 Request for final report SFRI by NVDA 27/1/2006

30 Change in pages 61,62,109, request for incorporating changes

10/3/2006

31 SFRI requests 5th and 6th installments 29/6/2006

32 NVDA to SFRI inability to pay the amount as report has lots of incorrect details

7/7/2006

33 SFRI requests documents related to public hearing held in April 2006

13/7/2006

34 Report submitted along with EIA changes 22/8/2006

35 Request by SFRI for final funds 25/9/2006

Public hearing process followed for LowerGoi Project


1 Request from NVDA to MPPCB along with the executive summary and form 1 and form 12.

13/7/2004

2 Member (Engg.) to MPPCB ( executive summary, details of villages affected)

13/8/2004

3 Request from NVDA to MPPCB to prepare for public hearing

18/10/2004

4 NVDA requests collector Zila Bhadwaani to elect the panel and confirm the date and location of public hearing

2/11/2004

5 Public hearing 4/12/2004

6 Collector to NVDA confirming the completion of public hearing on 4.12.2004

1/1/2005

7 NVDA to SFRI to incorporate comments of public hearing into EIA report

10/1/2005

8 MoEF to NVDA asking for fresh hearing because: a) EIA report not available at the time of public hearing b) R & R plan not available

10/3/2005

9 NVDA to SFRI for Rapid EIA 10/5/2005

10 SFRI sends Rapid EIA report and executive summary to NVDA

15/6/2005

11 Member (E & F) to Chief Engineer to request for date for public hearing

19/9/2005 and 14/11/2005

12 Member (E & F) to Member (Rehab) to provide the Rehabilitation Plan for the new public hearing

6/12/2005

13 Member ( E & F) to Chief Engineer to finalize the dates for public hearing

12/1/2006

14 Chief Engineer to Member (E & F) informing that the public heairng is not possible until the EIA report is completed and the Rehab Plan is approved

24/1/2006 and 6/2/2006

15 Member ( E & F) to Chief Engineer to finalize the dates for public hearing as all documents are ready

20/2/2006

16 Chief Engineer to Member (E & F) confirming date of public hearing

21/3/2006

17 Letter to SFRI confirmng dates of public hearing on 19/4/2006

10/4/2006

18 Public hearing (Second) 19/4/2006

19 Letter to MPPCB for NOC by NVDA 24/7/2006

20 Letter to MPPCB for NOC and report of public hearing by NVDA

4/8/2006

21 NOC and Public hearing details made available by MPPCB 11/9/2006

22 MoEF to NVDA mentioning issues raised by Manthan Adhyaan Kendra about the conduct of public hearing

8/2/2007

23 Letter sent by NVDA to MPPCB 24/2/2007

24 MoEF to NVDA to provide reply to letter dated 8/2/2007 7/3/2007

25 NVDA to MPPCB to provide answers to queries raised by MoEF

16/4/2007

26 MPPCB to NVDA rejecting Manthan Adhyaan Kendras objections as the issued were raised after the public hearing on 19/4/2006

2/6/2007

Appraisal Process for Environmental Clearance


1 NOC obtained from MPPCB 11/9/2006

2 MoEF informs NVDA that in the meeting on 20.12.2006 environmental clearance was not given due to some comments raised by Prof. S Basu and Dr. Sarkar on the EIA/EMP

10/1/2007

3 NVDA to SFRI to make necessary changes in EIA/EMP and provide clarifications for the queries raised

16/1/2007

4 Member (E & F) to Chief Engineer to provide clarifications on queries raised by MoEF

16/1/2007

5 NVDA to SFRI , environment appraisal questionaire 24/1/2007

11 SFRI to NVDA - clarification on comments 3/2/2007

12 Member (E & F) informs Chief Engineer to provide details based on comments raised by MoEF

13/2/2007

6 SFRI to NVDA mentioning that since this was addditional work an additional payment of Rs.150000 would be required

21/2/2007

13 MoEF informs NVDA that if information is not provided for queries mentioned in the letter on 10/1/07 the file would be closed

7/3/2007

14 NVDA to MoEF, clarifications oon queries raised by MoEF

21/3/2007

15 Request from NVDA to MoEF to not to close the file 4/4/2007

16 Letter from member (E & F) to Chief Engineer to make sure an appropriate person is present in the EAC meeting on 18.4.2007

11/4/2007

17 MoEF mentions it needs further details in its meeting held on 18.4.2007 a) Study of 10km periphery as per new notification b) Study of Wildlife affected c) Dam Break Analysis d) Monsoon season data e) R & R Plan f) Plan for Surface Drainage

30/4/2007

18 SFRI to NVDA , clarification of comments/ issues raised 18/5/2007

19 Request from Member (E & F) to Chief Engineer and Member (Rehab) to verify information sent by SFRI and provide details required by NVDA's end

28/5/2007

20 Request for information from Chief Engineer on letter dated 28.5.2007

5/6/2007

21 NVDA to MoEF , clarifications on issues raised in the meeting of EAC on 18.4.2007

9/7/2007

23 Dam Break Analysis and Disaster Management Plan required by MoEF

3/8/2007

24 Member ( Engg.) to Member (E & F) mentioning that the Dam Break Analysis would be submitted by 20.11.2007

17/9/2007

25 SFRI sends Disaster Management Plan to NVDA 10/10/2007

26 All the relevant documents and information sent to MoEF

23/11/2007

27 EAC meeting decided on 14/12/2007

28 Environment Clearance Accorded 17/1/2008

Site Clearance Process for Punasa Project


1 Karyalaya Yantri to Chief Engineer (NVDA) with the relevant documents and request to start the environment clearance process

/03/2004

2 VanMandaladhikari Khandwa to Karyalaya Yantri informing no forest land is affected by the project

7/6/2004

3 Confirmation from Zila Vyapar and Udyog Kendra to go ahead with the project

9/6/2004

4 Letter by Pashu Chikitsalya Vibhaag with the go ahead 15/6/2004

5 Tehsildaar to Karyalaya Yantri informing there is no holy place like temple, mosque or any historical site, railway line, highway etc being affected.

17/6/2004

6 Chief Engineer to Member(Forest) requesting to start the respective process and submit the proforma

12/7/2004

7 Chief Engineer to Member (Engg.) mentioning that since no Dam was being built hence site clearance as such may not be required therefore performa should be re-submitted accordingly.

15/7/2004

8 Application for Environment Clearance of Punasa Project, NVDA to MOEF

16/7/2004

9 MoEF to NVDA requesting additonal information a) Length of main canal and Nature of Canal b) How drinking water would be supplied to 255 villages c)proposed 35008 ha area is gross command area, confirmation required. d)Role of balancing reservior proposed e) Map not legible f) Location of village to be indicated properly on the maps

4/8/2004

10 NVDA to MoEF, with clarification of all its queries 24/8/2004

11 Site Clearance Accorded by MoEF to NVDA for Punasa Project

27/9/2004

EIA EMP events in chronological order for Punasa Project



2 MoU Signing with WAPCOS 28/7/2004

3 Letter from WAPCOS to NVDA, reqesting for Punasa Project related documents like DPR/FR

9/9/2004

4 WAPCOS to NVDA requesting release of first installment, enclosing the bank guarantee

22/9/2004

5 NVDA to Indian Overseas Bank asking to confirm the back guarantee sent by WAPCOS

29/9/2004

6 Indian Overseas Bank to NVDA confirming the bank guarantee

28/10/2004

7 NVDA to WAPCOS confirmation of site clearance and requesting to fulfill the conditions of EIA/EMP mentioned in site clearance

11/11/2004

8 NVDA to WAPCOS requesting the following: - inception report - Details of project team - Work plan in the form of bar chart - Monthly progress report - Draft of Study Report

16/11/2004

9 WAPCOS to NVDA , inception report submitted 19/11/2004

10 WAPCOS to NVDA requesting for more data, mentioning that - R&R policy for Indira Sagar Project was required - Maps, Index maps of Punasa Scheme, General Target Plan, Map of Narmada Basin - ownership as break up of total land (govt. , private, forest) - private land , number of owners, list of affected families etc

25/11/2004

11 NVDA to "VanMandaladhikari" , for payment of 10% as first installment to WAPCOS

6/12/2004

12 Money sent to WAPCOS 7/12/2004

13 WAPCOS to NVDA, Progress Report 15/12/2004

14 WAPCOS to NVDA , Data Collection Report and Construction Stage Impact Report

18/2/2005

15 WAPCOS to NVDA, Baseline Report 18/2/2005

16 WAPCOS to NVDA requesting for 2nd and 3rd installments 28/2/2005

17 WAPCOS To NVDA, officials visiting for Socio-Economic survey of project affected families, requesting cooperation

2/3/2005

18 Member (E&F) to other departments, requesting for comments on baseline report

5/3/2005

19 WAPCOS to NVDA, EIA/EMP First Draft 21/3/2005

20 Member (E&F) to other departments, requesting for comments on baseline report (reminder)

23/3/2005

21 Replies based on mail sent on 5/3/2005 and 23/3/2005 6/4/2005

22 DFO to Chief Engineer requesting Rapid EIA 18/5/2005

23 EIA Report for Punasa sent by WAPCOS 14/6/2005

24 Bank Guarantee sent by WAPCOS to DFO 27/7/2005

25 NVDA to WAPCOS , mentioning that the list of data needed for Master Plan of Command Area not submitted

17/8/2005

26 WAPCOS to NVDA comfirming the submission 23/8/2005

27 WAPCOS to NVDA providing a list of comments received from various dept. of NVDA on the EIA Report

21/10/2005

28 WAPCOS to NVDA mentioning that no further comments would be entertained as review comments were still coming in

23/12/2005

29 NVDA to WAPCOS requesting 50 copied of Executive Summary

29/12/2005

30 NVDA to WAPCOS requesting to submit the required documents

19/1/2006

31 NVDA to WAPCOS asking them to add all comments in the EIA report , raised by various departments

23/1/2006

32 NVDA to WAPCOS, request for duly filled schedule-2 and other relevant docs and the final EIA/EMP reports

24/1/2006

33 WAPCOS to NVDA, EIA/EMP Report and Schedule -2 27/1/2006

34 Member (E & F) to other departments to review the EIA/EMP

31/1/2006

35 MoEF requests for further clarification on EIA 2/3/2006

36 NVDA to WAPCOS , provide details of the seasons surveryed as well as the executive summary to MoEF

10/3/2006

37 Installment sent by NVDA to WAPCOS 3/4/2006

38 NVDA to MoEF, all relevant documents 18/4/2006

39 MoEF further queries on EIA 31/5/2006

40 NVDA to WAPCOS , questioning the innaccuracies in the report

16/6/2006

41 Reminder sent again to WAPCOS of the letter dated 16/6/2006, as well as a request for clarification of comments raised by MoEF

23/6/2006

42 WAPCOS to NVDA requesting additional details and payment for the extra work

26/6/2006 and 12/7/2006

43 NVDA to WAPCOS, providing the additional details required by WAPCOS

12/7/2006

44 Reply by NVDA to the points raised by WAPCOS and the request for additional funds

31/7/2006

45 Request for pending payment, WAPCOS to NVDA 1/8/2006

46 NVDA to WAPCOS, details sent 10/8/2006 and 22/8/2006

47 WAPCOS responds to NVDA's letter dated 31.7.2006 1/9/2006

48 Member (E & F) to other departments like Engg. And Rehab to send details to WAPCOS

14/11/2006

49 WAPCOS's request for details on : - PAF list - ground water potential - flow velocity - forest related data

14/11/2006

50 Clarify the 15 points raised by MoEf ( NVDA to WAPCOS) 25/11/2006

51 Member (E&F) to Chief Enginner requesting them to send required details to WAPCOS to provide clarifications to all its queries

30/11/2006

52 WAPCOS - NVDA , Clarifications to MoEF comments 11/12/2006

53 MoEF requests for further clarification 23/1/2007

54 WAPCOS to NVDA , ecological survey required , payment of additional 1.5 Lakhs required for the same

23/1/2007

55 MoEF mentions its going to close the files if clarifications not received within 2 weeks

7/3/2007

56 WAPCOS agrees for ecological suvey without additional cost

16/3/2007

57 WAPCOS requests additional details from NVDA 20/3/2007

58 NVDA to WAPCOS, submit report for final payment 22/3/2007

59 WAPCOS sends modified EIA/EMP May-07

Public hearing process followed for Punasa Project


1 MoEF to NVDA , Site Clearance 27/9/2004

2 Member (E & F) to Chief Engineer to fulfill all the conditions of site clearance like EIA/EMP , public hearing etc

21/10/2004

3 Mukhya Nagar Paalika Adhikari to Karyapalan Yantri - NOC to the balancing reservoirs being made as part of the Punasa Project

19/11/2004

4 Gram Panchayat to Karyapalan Yantri - NOC to balancing reservoirs

Nov-04

5 Punasa Project details along with Executive Summary, EIA/EMP, DPR submitted to MPPCB

24/11/2004

6 NVDA requests collector Zila Khandwa to elect the panel and confirm the date and location of public hearing

21/12/04 and 29/1/2005

7 Member (E & F) to Chief Engineer informing that the collector has already been requested to suggest the panel for public hearing, please follow up with the collector

9/2/2005

8 Collector orders Public hearing for Omkareshwar and Indira Sagar Project instead of Punasa

11/2/2005

9 NVDA requesting Collector to kindly rectify the mistake in his letter dated 11/2/2005 where he had ordered for the public hearing if Omkareshwar Project and Indira Sagar Project which have already received EC, request to change it to Punasa

28/2/2005

10 Public hearing conducted 20/4/2005

11 MoEF to NVDA mentioning that public hearing documents have not been made available

7/6/2005

12 MPPCB to MOEF , NOC of Public hearing 7/6/2005

13 Chief Engineer confirming that public hearing documents have been sent to Member (E & F)

24/6/2005

14 NVDA sends Public hearing documents incorporated into the EIA/EMP to MoEF

28/3/2006

Appraisal Process for Environmental Clearance for Punasa Project


1 NOC obtained from MPPCB 7/6/2005

2 NVDA to WAPCOS to submit the relevant documents needed to pursue the case further with MoEF

27/11/2005

3 NVDA to MoEF - EIA/EMP Report - Public hearing documents

2/2/2006

4 MoEF to NVDA mentioning that the questionaires, public hearing documents have not been receieved by it, also for the EIA report it is not clear how many seasons have been surveyed, exec summary of EIA not submitted

2/3/2006

5 NVDA to MoEF mentioning that questionaire , public hearin documents have already been sent earlier and the EIA summary would be submitted shortly

10/3/2006 and 28/3/2006

6 MoEF to NVDA mentioning that the EAC meeting for Punasa would be held on 19.4.2006

29/3/2006

7 EAC meeting 19/4/2006

6 MoEF to NVDA - documents not received on time, on 19th April 2006 only - next meeting on 17.5.2006

1/5/2006

13 NVDA to MoEF confirming docs sent 6/5/2006

14 Member (E & F) to Chief Engineer to be present at the EAC meeting on 17.5.2006

10/5/2006

15 NVDA to WAPCOS to kindly have a representative at the meeting

12/5/2006

16 MoEF to NVDA, following comments raised 1) figure of land given is inaccurate 2) No. of families affected is 388 instead of 122 3) Irrelevant information in the questionaire at some places 4) Data for terestrial flora and fauna not verified after directly using it from the forest department data 5) Incorrect names used at places 6) Catchment areas of balancing reservoirs not studied for soil erosion and treatment 7) Poor Map Quality , no evidence of GIS survey 8) Incorrect botanical names of plants 9) Plantation for canal bank, acacia should be avoided 10) Copied material from other project 11) FCC , land cover maps not available 12) Quantitative analysis of natural vegetation should be planned 13) Submit in tabular form original land holding of PAF 14) Available ground water potential, number of ground water structures feasible and conjuctive use of water should be mentioned 15) Recheck soil phosphate and report all figures in terms of kg. of available Nitrogen and Phosphate 16) River water quality does not show coliform count, turbidity exceeds twice the permissible limit for C grade water 17) Flow velocity in canal missing 18) Plantation of eucalyptus to be avoided as it is a water exhausitng plant

31/5/2006

17 NVDA to WAPCOS , requesting clarification for comments raised by MoEF

16/6/2006

18 WAPCOS to NVDA requesting for more details from NVDA like catchment area treatmetn plan, list of PAF

26/6/2006

19 NVDA to GoI to provide clearanc urgently 11/9/2006

20 WAPCOS to NVDA requesting for - PAF details - ground water potential - flow velocity - additional forest related data

13/11/2006

21 Member (E & F) to Chief Engineer to provide the details requested by WAPCOS

14/11/2006

23 WAPCOS to NVDA , draft replies to queries raised by MoEF 24/11/2006

24 Chief Engineer to Member (E & F) replies to some of the queries raised by MoEF

4/12/2006

25 WAPCOS to NVDA replies to queries by MoEF 11/12/2006

26 NVDA to MoEF, clarifications to queries raised in the letter on 31.5.2006

18/12/2006

27 NVDA to MoEF, requesting EC accordance 12/1/2007

28 MoEF asks for further clarifications - FCC not proper - Additional information on bio diversity and conservation - Micro flora fauna information - density , frequency and abundance - IVI, Shannon Weaver biodiversity indices to be measured for all vegetation types - Maps to be submitted - Groundwater details

23/1/2007

29 MoEF to NVDA asking for clarifications for its queries in letter on 23.1.2007 in two weeks, else it will close the file

7/3/2007

30 WAPCOS to NVDA requesting for further data 26/3/2007

31 NVDA to MoEF requesting not to close the file 3/4/2007

31 NVDA to MoEF requesting not to close the file 1/5/2007

32 WAPCOS to NVDA , replies to queries raised by MoEF 3/5/2007

33 Information submitted by NVDA to MoEF 7/5/2007

34 MoEF Accords Environment Clearance to Punasa Project 16/7/2007

Site Clearance Process for Halon Project


1 Application process for Environment Clearance of Halon Project begins from NVDA's end, All relevant documents sent to MoEF

6/3/2002

2 MoEF to NVDA requesting clarification a) confusion in the area of project mentioned for total project and for irrigation b) break up of the area under existing land usage c) Reasons for not considering alternate sites d) Comments receieved from Director , Kanha, MP and Chief Wildlife Warden, MP

15/3/2002

3 Letter to Directos Kanha to provide the required comments

8/8/2002 and 30/11/2002

4 Member (Engg.) to Chief Engineer requesting the following information - performa of questionaire - Application form, schedule -2 - feasibility report - relevant maps

2/11/2002

5 NVDA to All India Soil and Land Use Survey requesting for prioritization of catchment area of Halon Project in Mandla District

5/4/2003

6 Member (E & F) to Chief Engineer to clarify queries of MoEF

20/6/2003

7 NVDA to MoEF, clarification sent for the queries of MoEF

22/8/2003

8 MoEF to NVDA , Site clearance accorded for Halon Project

18/11/2003

9 NVDA to MoEF, requesting permission for construction purposes at Halon Site

11/2/2004 ,7/3/2004 , 15/3/2004

10 Member (E & F) to Chief Engineer to prepare the necessar documents, paperwork for the Environment Clearance of Halon

30/4/2004

11 MoEF to NVDA , no constuction at site possible until EC is accorded

8/7/2004

EIA EMP events in chronological order for Halon Project



2 MoU Signing with WAPCOS 28/7/2004

3 WAPCOS to NVDA, bank guarantee sent 22/9/2004

4 WAPCOS to NVDA , site visit by one of their experts 27/9/2004

5 NVDA to Indian Overseas Bank, asking to confirm the bank guarantee

26/9/2004

6 WAPCOS to NVDA, Inception Report 19/11/2004

7 Member (E & F) to DFO, please send the I installment to WAPCOS

6/12/2004

8 DFO to Finance Team, Confirming that first installment is bein sent to WAPCOS

7/12/2004

9 NVDA to WAPCOS, informing that details of public hearing should also be included in the EIA

8/12/2004

10 WAPCOS to NVDA requesting the following details: 1) Ground water balance study report 2) Soil maps of command area

10/12/2004

11 Progress Report, WAPCOS to NVDA 15/12/2004

12 WAPCOS to NVDA mentioning that some experts would be visiting the Halon sote and also requesting more details

29/12/2004

13 WAPCOS to NVDA , sending data collection report, construction stage impact report

28/2/2004

14 Member (E & F) to other departments to review the data collection report and construction stage impact report

16/3/2005

15 WAPCOS to NVDA, operation stage impact report 22/3/2005

16 Draft EIA/EMP report 29/3/2005

17 Modified EIA/EMP report, WAPCOS to NVDA 21/6/2005

18 WAPCOS to NVDA confirming that modified EIA/EMP reports have already been sent

30/6/2005

19 NVDA to WAPCOS , confirming WAPCOS's letter on 30.6.2005

5/7/2005

20 WAPCOS to NVDA, bank guarantee sent for next installment

22/7/2005

21 Comments received on draft EIA/EMP report 4/8/2005

22 WAPCOS to NVDA, sending checklist for master plan of command area development

5/8/2005

23 NVDA to WAPCOS mentioning that checklist has not been received

17/8/2005

24 WAPCOS to NVDA, checklist sent again 22/8/2005

25 WAPCOS to NVDA, requesting - comments in R & R plan - catchment area maps sent by AISLUS

26/8/2005

26 WAPCOS to NVDA confirming the various comments received on 2.6.2005, 6.6.2005, 10.6.2005, 19.7.2005, 26.7.2005, 1.8.2005, 31.8.2005, 1.9.2005, 5.9.2005, 9.9.2005, 28.9.2005

21/10/2005

27 NVDA to WAPCOS requesting to attend the meeting on 23.11.2005 to finalize the schedule -2 of questionaire

14/11/2005

28 WAPCOS to NVDA, inability to attend the meeting requesting for change of date

16/11/2005

29 Meeting between WAPCOS and NVDA 6/12/2005

30 Letter from WAPCOS to NVDA , no further comments on EIA/EMP would be entertained as discussed in the meeting

23/12/2005

31 NVDA to WAPCOS , requesting executive summary for public hearing

27/1/2006

32 Executive Summary and Rapid EIA required, NVDA to WAPCOS

1/2/2006, 7/2/2006

33 NVDA to WAPCOS to send the R&R Plan, Rapid EIA, Executive Summary in English as well as local language

16/2/2006

34 Member (E&F) to Chief Engineer to Confirm if WAPCOS have sent the relevant documents, else inform WAPCOS about the same

6/3/2006

35 NVDA to WAPCOS, please send the relevant documents within 3 days

6/3/2006

36 WAPCOS to NVDA requesting review of - Data Collection Report - Construction Stage Impact Report - Operation Stage Impact Report Kindly approve EIA/EMP and then only final EIA/EMP would be approved

7/3/2006

37 NVDA to WAPCOS, Rapid EIA , executive summary not received

4/5/2006

38 WAPCOS to NVDA , request for more funds 8/5/2006

39 Member (E&F) to Chief Engineer , the final EIA/EMP report and R&R plan are now made available by WAPCOS kindly make the necessary arrangements for public hearing and send the relevant documents to MPPCB

24/5/2006

40 Chief Engineer to Member (E&F), documents need to be submitted in English as well as local language

14/6/2006

41 NVDA to WAPCOS requesting EIA/EMP in Hindi as well 3/7/2006

42 Vice Chairman (NVDA) to WAPCOS request for Rapid EIA, R&R Plan. Executive Summary in both Hindi and Englih

25/7/2006

43 Reminder from NVDA to WAPCOS for the documents 2/8/2006

44 MEG meeting 30/8/2006

45 Payments to be made to WAPCOS 8/9/2006

46 NVDA to WAPCOS, EIA/EMP not available 12/12/2006, 27/12/2006

47 Additional TORs sent by MoEF 10/1/2007

48 TORs forwarded to WAPCOS 12/1/2007

49 WAPCOS to NVDA to send details for the additional TORs 15/1/2007

50 Final documents submitted, meeting at WAPCOS on 30.3.2008 or 31.3.2008

26/3/2008

51 EIA/EMP with comments incorporated sent by WAPCOS to NVDA

28/4/2008

52 WAPCOS to NVDA, mentioning the summary would be submitted once EIA/EMP is approved

2/5/2008

53 NVDA to WAPCOS, comments on Draft EIA/EMP 5/6/2008

54 WAPCOS to NVDA , EIA/EMP , Executive Summary sent and requesting for final payment

5/3/2009

Public hearing process followed for Halon Project


1 Member (E & F) to Chief Engineer requesting for executive summary of EIA, Jal Adhiniyam and Vayu Adhinayam documents to be presented to MPPCB

30/6/2004

2 Member (E & F) to Chief Engineer to prepare all documents for Public Hearing

5/8/2004

3 NVDA to MPPCB request for conducting public hearing, forms already submitted

25/8/2004

4 MPPCB to NVDA mentioning that the relevant documents have not been submitted for Public Hearing, submit within 15 days

28/9/2004

5 NVDA to MPPCB requesting around 1 years time to get the EIA/EMP Report ready as the consultant has been decided recently

13/10/2004

6 MPPCB to Collector (Mandla) , request to conduct Public Hearing

19/10/2004

7 Public Hearing conducted 15/12/2004

8 NVDA to Collector requesting for Public Hearing Documents

28/1/2005

9 MPPCB to NVDA , NOC sent 11/2/2005

10 NOC forwarded to WAPCOS by NVDA 3/3/2005

11 MoEF asks for a fresh public hearing as the EIA/EMP was not submitted at that time

10/3/2005

12 MPPCB to NVDA requesting for EIA/EMP for fresh public hearing

12/4/2005

13 NVDA to WAPCOS ,Incorporate comments of previous hearing into the EIA

16/5/2005

14 Member (E & F) to Chief Engineer to do the necessary ground work for the fresh public hearing

19/9/2005 , 16/11/2005 , 16/1/2006, 27/1/2006

15 NVDA to WAPCOS, Rapid EIA and Executive Summary Required

1/2/2006, 25/3/2006 and 4/5/2006

16 Chief Engineer to Member (Engg.) request Member (E &F) for providing EIA/EMP and R&R plan

15/4/2006

17 Member (E&F) to Chief Engineer informing that WAPCOS has been asked to send the Rapid EIA report, and the R&R Plan and EIA / EMP have been sent to Chief Engineer

12/5/2006

18 Chief Engineer to Member (E&F) to provide all the documents in Hindi as well

29/5/2006

19 NVDA to WAPCOS requesting for EIA/EMP and Rapid EIA in Hindi

3/7/2006

20 Member (E & F) to Member (Rehab) to provide the R&R Plan in hindi

3/8/2006

21 Member(E&F) to Chief engineer expressing inability to translate documents into hindi as the department does not have anyone with the skills required for the same

5/8/2006

22 Member (E & F) to Member (Rehab) to provide the R&R Plan in hindi

21/8/2006

23 Member (E &F) to Chief engineer to start the public hearing process as all documents are ready

26/8/2006

24 NVDA to MPPCB to start process for Public Hearing 7/9/2006 and 18/9/2006

25 NVDA to MoEF, informing that documents have been submitted for public hearing

10/11/2006

26 MoEF to NVDA mentioning that TOR needs to be examined on the basis of Notification- 2006

14/11/2006

27 MoEF sets additional 14 TORs for Halon 10/1/2007

28 New TORs forwarded to WAPCOS 12/1/2007

29 WAPCOS to NVDA requesting additional details with regards the new TOR

15/1/2007

30 Member( E& F) to Chief Engineer asking to send details to WAPCOS as requested by them

19/1/2007, 20/2/2007, 5/3/2007

31 Clearance of the R & R plan of NVDA by Ministry of Tribal Affairs

25/1/2007

32 NVDA to WAPCOS, details sent as requested 29/3/2007

33 NVDA to WAPCOS to send the clarifications to the queries of MoEF

20/4/2007, 1/6/2007, 17/8/2007

34 Additional details sent by Karyalaya Yantri to be included in EIA/EMP forwarded to WAPCOS by NVDA

28/4/2007

35 NVDA requests some clarification in TOR from MoEF 14/8/2007

35 WAPCOS to NVDA requesting details of AISLUS report 21/8/2007

36 NVDA to WAPCOS , details of AISLUS report 24/8/2007

37 Clarification to NVDAs queries by MoEF 5/9/2007

38 Comprehensive EIA/EMP prepared as per new TOR, sent by WAPCOS to NVDA

28/7/2008

39 Fresh Public hearing conducted 12/2/2009

40 MPPCB sends proceeedings of public hearing to MoEF and NVDA

9/3/2009

41 MoEF mentions that only one public hearing was conducted whereas 2 were required

29/6/2009

42 Fresh Public hearing conducted in Mandla 31/7/2009

Appraisal Process for Environmental Clearance for Halon Project


1 MPPCB sends proceeedings of public hearing to MoEF and NVDA

9/3/2009

2 WAPCOS requests NVDA to send their representatives for EAC meeting on 19/20 March

12/3/2009

3 Member (E & F) to Member (Engg.) , requesting to prepare a ppt and other details for the EAC meeting

13/3/2009

4 MoEF mentions that Halon would not be considered for the meeting on 19/20th March

16/3/2009

5 MoEF to NVDA requesting clarification on the following: - Public hearing was conducted in on district Balaghat only and not in Mandla which was the other district being affected, why is this so? - Gross Comand Area, CCA and ICA not mentioned properly - Compensation package must be better than NRRP-2007 - Baseline data should provide information about data and time of monitoring - Details of degraded forest, local fish required - factors affecting drinking water, steps to mitigate them

3/6/2009 (meeting held on 14.5.2009)

6 NVDA to MPPCB , requesting to confirm whether Public hearing was conducted in 2 districts or one

21/5/2009

7 MPPCB replies that hearing was conducted in Balaghat, and district collector from Mandla was asked to be a part of it

29/5/2009

8 NVDA sends the clarification by MPPCB to MoEF 9/6/2009

9 MoEF mentions that only one public hearing was conducted whereas 2 were required

29/6/2009

10 Fresh Public hearing conducted in Mandla 31/7/2009

11 MPPCB forwards publci hearing details to MoEf, NVDA 24/8/2009

12 MoEF needs further clarifications as replies provided during the public heairng were not proper

14/9/2009

13 Member (E & F) to Member (Engg.), requesting to reply to the queries raised by MoEF and send it to MoEF through MPPCB

16/9/2009, 25/9/2009, 8/10/2009

14 Chief Engineer to MPPCB, clarifications to queries raised by MoEF

3/10/2009

15 Member (E & F) to Member (Engg.) and Member (Rehab) to come prepared for their clarifications for the queries raised by MoEF for the meeting on 6/11/2009

26/10/2009

16 Chief Engineer to MoEF, clarifications to queries raised by MoEF

4/11/2009

17 EAC meeting 16/11/2009

18 Environment Clearance Accorded, letter by MoEF 4/1/2010

Study for Expeditious Processing of Environment Clearances ... scheme/Final_Report_Gopakum… ·...

Documents

Transcript of Study for Expeditious Processing of Environment Clearances ... scheme/Final_Report_Gopakum… ·...